My 16 year old son, in a philosophical moment says: “You know Dad, as soon as you understand a rule, it doesn’t apply any more.”
He started with these ideas in an English lesson, where having been taught the rules of writing poetry, he observed that the best poets ignore the rules. As soon as you understand what the rules are for, you know when it OK to break them.
But he extended this to life in general, and we had a deep chat, in which I forget what was him and what was me. But think about it.
As soon as you understand the 30mph speed limit in British urban areas - the risk of an accident and the immeasurable consequences of killing a child – as soon as you understand this you don’t dare drive faster than 25mph. The rule doesn’t apply anymore.
Applying this now to spiritual things; in the Bible we read: “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” John 15:15. (I’m sure there’s a better one of these that talks about servants and sons, but I can’t find it.). The point is, the servant has to obey rules. He doesn’t know what is going on, he just follows the rules and it all works out OK, or disobeys and gets punished. But the friends do know what is going on, and having a common cause, work towards its fulfilment. They have no need of rules, because they are doing what the rules would have made them do anyway. In fact, the rules would just cramp their style, and as friends they are free to work towards the common purpose, in consultation but not really under authority.
So in the old testament the house of faith was characterised as a servant, following all the OT rules and regulations.
But in the new testament, we are no longer under the OT law. We have been made sons of God. His interest is our interest. Our will is aligned with his. He communes with us in Spirit. So while the NT is full of commands, they are commands which are in line with our new nature and we are doing it anyway.
All things are permissible. We want to build with Christ according to his pattern. So of course, there is a blanket permission for us to do so.
Great principle.
- See also David eating the Shewbread.
- See also eating meat sacrificed to idols.
- See also meat containing blood
- See also eating with gentiles
- See also Peter’s vision of the unclean animals.
- See also circumcision
- See also tithing
But lets look at some rules, that might not apply as “rules” when we understand what they are getting at:
Eg:
- conservative approaches to women in the church:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” 1 Tim 2:12
“If a woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered ….1 Cor 11:5.”
“a woman must remain silent” 1 Tim 2:12 - Relationships
“…homosexual offenders….will not inherit the kingdom of God” [though I dispute that translation of arsenokoitai] 1 Cor 6
No sex before marriage ( a principle derived from several scriptures) - Church traditions
Only ordained priests can preside at the eucharist (No scriptures for this man-made tradition!)
Holy days (Rom 14:5)
Any more suggestions?
hey, saint simon--
ReplyDeleteinteresting idea. do you know about kohlberg's model for moral development? or fowler's faith development model? they both talk about motivation for faith, and for moral behavior. your son's discovery about rules moves him to a high level on the kohlberg model.
but i also notice that your side bar includes hell as motivation for changing one's behavior, which is 'behave to avoid punishment,' the lowest level on kohlberg's model.
so which is it--
motivation by enlightenment, so that one's own moral compass moves ones behavior into something beyond mere rules, or motivation through fear of punishment? which resonates best for you?
peace--
scott
Scott
ReplyDelete...Hail to one who is clearly more intellectual than I!
I have not studied the philosophers/theologians you quote. My degree is in Civil Engineering, and whilst I did a bit of study to become a Licensed Reader it wasn't THAT deep.
I think you misconstrue my side bar, but perhaps I need to edit it to get the correct emphasis. I am not saying "behave to avoid punishment" - I am saying "here is the solution to the punishment you have already incurred". And the solution includes the enlightenment which as a fringe benefit rather than motivation avoids further punishment. I think the Bible makes it abundantly clear that we can never behave sufficiently well to avoid punishment altogether. St Augustine trumped Pelagius.
I wrote the above after I wrote what is below, which is a line of reasoning that goes off in a different direction and is not altogether compatible with the above, but wasn't quite bad enough to actually delete. See what you think.
The side bar presents a choice, one side being hell, the other being a restored relationship with God. Carrot and stick. Both required. But how big is the carrot and how big is the stick? An eternal relationship with God seems like a big carrot to me, and I hope that I will find it sufficiently attractive for the stick to be out of my feild of vision. But I still need to know that the stick exists, and that it fell on Christ for me, in order for me to know just how much I love Christ.
The stick falling on Christ is also the key that unlocks my ability to see the carrot and desire it.
Thus in answer to your question, I see motivation through fear of punishment as the gateway to motivation by enligthenment. Enlightenment that does not include the knowledge [that the alternative is punishment] is only a partial enlightenment, and in lacking the knowledge of Christ's acceptance of that punishment on our behalf it will not render a full restoration of relationship with God.
"He who is forgiven much loves much"
simon--
ReplyDeleteyou've got me thinking. i want to approach my thinking here in a venue we share-- reading scripture on sunday mornings. with your permission, let me unpack a few things about reading with you. (if my wrestling with you about things comes off as trollish, or rude, or inappropriate, don't be afraid to shut me right down.)
at the end of your post, you cited a few scriptures, 'rules' as such, that you now have to wrestle with a bit as a result of your conversation with your son. in lectoring, how do you approach the proclamation of readings you disagree with? how do you approach theproclamation of readings that you think may not be good for the congregation to hear?
peace--
scott
Hi Scott
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to challenge, dispute and engage as much as you wish. I enjoy it. The only thing is that I tend to do this in work time, when I am being paid to design sewage works, and its rather naughty, so I can't spend too much time on it.
My position as a Licensed Reader in the Church of England is more than just doing the readings. They are thinking of changing the title to 'Lay Minister' to avoid this confusion. So as well as doing the reading, i get to do the sermon as well.
This helps a lot when it comes to those difficult passages, in that I can explain (within my limited ability) how the passage should be understood in today's society.
Now, there are no readings that I 'disagree' with - I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. But I have moved away from the Evangelical view that it must be taken at face value. Our present culture and the difficulties of achieving an unbiased translation mean that what we think is the face value is often not actually what it is intended to say. So we have to pray a lot, seek the Holy Spirit, and ask Him to interpret the Word - which I hold sacred in every detail - in a manner which derives from Him as His will for today, and which does not derive from my own cultural misreading of the Scripture.
So it comes back to the idea that while your understanding is limited, you have to take it as face value as best you can, and like a slave obey without understanding, but then to continue diligently studying and seeking the Holy Spirit until his will is revealed. Then we participate with understanding, and the slavish rule following ceases to happen. In most cases we are probably still behaving in the same way, but voluntarily rather than under compulsion.
So what is God's will regarding women, sexuality, etc? I am still studying, learning, and changing, and generally becoming much more open, tolerant and broad in my interpretations.
Now I must go and design a grit trap and work out the water level in the screen channel.
God Bless.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteAs a preacher, there are times when I admit I don't have a formed view on something, and present the congregation instead with the range of possible interpretations and their relative merits. IN general they would prefer to be told what to believe, but then they would remain slaves, and I want them to be sons.
Simon
hey, simon--
ReplyDeletea bit more if you're interested.
the second reading for advent 2, year a, is second peter 3:8-15a, 18 (you're using the anglican lectionary, yes?). i'm guessing that when you prepare for proclamation, you read the 'missing' verses as well.
why did the 'redactors' of the lectionary leave out 15b thru 17?
how does the editing the lectionary editors did change the meaning of the text?
when you proclaim the word, do you put them back in?
when you explain the word, do you explain to the congregation why they were left out (your understanding of it, anyway)?
does the lectionary become a new 'canon' for you and the congregation, chosen at the 'council of lectionary,' or do you use the larger canon of the complete text (the original scripture text)?
peace--
scott
Hi Scott
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year.
My Church is a very 'low' church, so while it is Anglican and subject to the Bishop, we don't use the lectionary. So I'm not qualified to answer most of your question. If I were to preach on this passage, I would explain as well as I could.
THe thrust of the passage is about the need to grasp the opportunity for Salvation while it is available. The section which is removed in the lectionary is not removed from the Scripture. It is removed from the day's reading because it is an aside, adressing a different issue to the verses they have chosen. They are difficult verses, which merit a sermon in their own right, and a full explanation of them could simply distract from the main message.
So: Sermon 1 based on the lectionary verses:
Point 1 - grab salvation while it's on offer.
Point 2 - live a life in keeping with your salvation.
Point 3 - grow in that life.
Sermon 2 based on the excluded verses:
Point 1 - Paul's letters contain divine wisdom and equate to Scripture
Point 2 - it's possible to distort Paul's message
Point 3 - be on your guard!
These are two very different sermons, both important, but pushing in such different directions that you can't really mix them in a single Sunday sermon. One is talking to inquirers and new CHristians, the other sorts out some more meaty stuff for more mature Christians.
Would I read the whole passage including the excluded verses? I'd have to weigh up the context and the level of understanding in the congregation.
God Bless
Simon
Point 3 -
simon--
ReplyDeletedo you keep your notes for your sermons on line anywhere? or would you be willing to start? i'd be most interested.
scott
Hi Scott
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words.
I don't keep my sermons on line. I started but
1. excessive workload
2. software problems
3. it seemed vaguely self-agrandising
4. very few people read my blog, and I expected even fewer to read sermons. I don't read anyone else's!
Apart from those things, this is supposed to be an anonymous blog, and my sermons make reference to the particlar congregation. On similar lines, I believe a sermon to be pregnant with the Holy Spirit's specific words for those people in taht time and place, and can not necessarily be transferred to another context, even if the theology and doctrine therein is standard.
And lastly, my notes have gone through phases - initially I wrote every single word, but I am told that I preach better with much looser notes. So I am trying to be minimalist with my notes, and then they won't make sense to a casual reader.
In summary - no.
God bless
Simon