- Jesus
To me, this verse has taken on such new meaning over the past year or so. I have fought against the abuse of authority and pastoral preeminence very strongly. However, I have come to the conclusion that while my intentions and mission were proper, my end result was off kilter. While establishing one truth (the spiritual authority of each believer), I neglected another (Authority flows through submission to those already established). I have been reluctant to take a position of authority in my own ministry because I didn't want to be guilty of egoism and self-exaltation. But my position as a pastor dictates that I be placed in that relational authority (albeit temporarily) until the proper principles can be understood and practiced by an individual on their own. In other words, my calling has a responsibility to becoming a father figure to those seeking a deeper relationship with God.
The Book of Galatians tells us that when we are young, we differ nothing from a slave. But when we become mature, we are masters of all. Read that message again. Paul isn't giving a carte blanche license to do anything we want. He is telling them that just obeying rules without a purpose is legalism and dead religion. But the Law is good and righteous. So what is the principle at hand? That we should follow after the Spirit of Christ. What made Christ so unique? It wasn't the miracles. It wasn't the just the doctrine. It was that He was and is the Word incarnate. Or, to put it another way, He was 100% obedient to the Spirit and Word of God.
This is the entire problem, in a nutshell: Most of us want power without perimeters. We want to see the influence of God outwardly without the influence of God inwardly. Standards of dress and conduct can be arbitrary. They can be inconsistent from one pastor to the next. But on the bottom rung of the ladder, there must be a principle of submission to authority in our lives, no matter what the particulars may be. When we give ourselves an authority, other than ourselves, we become submissive for the singular purpose of becoming more like Jesus. It is a fast of will that most never take part in. I am ready to join that fast. I hope that others will realize, as I have, that giving up the carnal for the sake of the spiritual is a good thing.
What is required is of less import than the reasons we do them. We are not made righteous by our actions, but our actions do display our heart's condition. I want to prove to myself that Jesus is Lord of my life. If that means obeying them that have the rule over me, then I believe that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. So bring on the pain, it's what makes us champions in the end!
The Book of Galatians tells us that when we are young, we differ nothing from a slave. But when we become mature, we are masters of all. Read that message again. Paul isn't giving a carte blanche license to do anything we want. He is telling them that just obeying rules without a purpose is legalism and dead religion. But the Law is good and righteous. So what is the principle at hand? That we should follow after the Spirit of Christ. What made Christ so unique? It wasn't the miracles. It wasn't the just the doctrine. It was that He was and is the Word incarnate. Or, to put it another way, He was 100% obedient to the Spirit and Word of God.
This is the entire problem, in a nutshell: Most of us want power without perimeters. We want to see the influence of God outwardly without the influence of God inwardly. Standards of dress and conduct can be arbitrary. They can be inconsistent from one pastor to the next. But on the bottom rung of the ladder, there must be a principle of submission to authority in our lives, no matter what the particulars may be. When we give ourselves an authority, other than ourselves, we become submissive for the singular purpose of becoming more like Jesus. It is a fast of will that most never take part in. I am ready to join that fast. I hope that others will realize, as I have, that giving up the carnal for the sake of the spiritual is a good thing.
What is required is of less import than the reasons we do them. We are not made righteous by our actions, but our actions do display our heart's condition. I want to prove to myself that Jesus is Lord of my life. If that means obeying them that have the rule over me, then I believe that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. So bring on the pain, it's what makes us champions in the end!
3 comments:
So here we go...
We could easily agree that submission and righteousness are something that is mandated in scripture. There is no question. However, there is no wrong in removing yourself from under the submission of someone who teaches falsehoods, which would include the false teaching that outward sanctification is a mandate from Heaven.
If we all were to live within this ideal, then where would the truth of the Godhead fall? You mean to tell me, it would have been better to submit to Athanasius and repress the teachings of others more in tune with scripture?
You mean to tell me, the early 20th Century church should have held their tongues in that small College Chapel while waiting for a new outpouring of the spirit, as speaking in tongues was no longer needed, as professed by the church patriarchs of the time?
Let me answer for you. Of course not. These acts were acts of submission to the Spirit which trumps the submission to man/organization.
Our friends who have strayed from a "standards" lifestyle have come to their own realization that they no longer need to submit to the demands of man, rather wholly to the demand of Scripture and the Spirit of God (which will not be contrary).
The problem is not wanting Power without Perimeters, rather the problem is thinking power only happens within the perimeters. The perimeters of church, perimeters of ministry, perimeters of tradition are all opponents to what God wants to do. Not that these perimeters create impenetrable walls from which God cannot move, rather filters in which God works through that are not necessary and that we place in front of him. They are "lines" the young women creates for her lover to walk. Up until this point our Lover has been gracious enough to walk those lines.
(These references are not saying church, ministry, and traditions are wholly bad. However, the must be in line with what scripture teaches, not tradition. Ie. Advent and lent are not bad. Actually I plan on celebrating the Christmas holiday with an Advent Calendar this year, and utilizing Lent next year as a way to get more out of the holiday.)
I find it interesting, we can quote scripture all days on righteousness, holiness, and living for God. We shout and dance, and praise God for offering us an opportunity to live that way for him. And in the same breath we input a hope of outward sanctification which is not "needed" (to be saved) but it is "needed" (to be apart of the club).
The saying goes "If you sleep in the barn, youre gonna wake up smelling like a cow!" Well... whats so wrong with that if youre trying to reach cows? What so wrong with looking like a gang banger if youre trying to reach gang bangers? Whats wrong with wearing a suit if your trying to reach church people? (That was a little dig there... I hope you felt it! :)
The line that is drawn is the only one we need to walk. That line is modesty. And like it or not, that word has cultural and contextual relevance. It's ok for a woman to wear jeans, and there will be nothing separating her from God, if she is being modest. It is ok for a woman to wear a short sleeve shirt, and a man to wear shorts, and for a man to wear a beard, and for a woman to trim her hair. All of these hopes for outward sanctification are thoughts pulled out of context and applied to a cultural environment they were never meant to be applied to.
For instance, 100 years ago it would have been considered rude, and disrespectful for a woman to show her ankle. I remember my grandfather recounting a story he heard from his father. He said he was walking along the wooden planks of a hotel patio when he looked down to see a woman entering a horse drawn carriage. When she stepped up to enter the carriage he caught a glimpse of her ankle. He then left immediately to head to the church to repent for what he just saw.
The culture had complete relevance on what was meant as modest. Today the picture is quite different.
Now I say all that to say this… if you feel like the best thing for you and your family is to have your wife wear only skirts, and for you not to head to the gym in a tank top and dolphin shorts, then AWESOME!!! Great!!! I am so glad to know you have the ability to create some lines in your life that you will adhere to. But, if I decide that its ok for my wife to wear jeans, shorts, or if I decide to head to the beach and remove my shirt, we have to be ok with that.
Now I know I can’t be apart of your leadership club, or preach at your church while my wife wears jeans in your front row, but that means nothing. What means more than anything is reaching heaven and making it my home. In order to do so, inward sanctification is the ONLY thing that matters. If not, we would all wear Robes and leather sandals as we want to be just like Jesus.
Josh, you seem to think that everything has cultural relevance except Acts 2:38. By your estimation, do you think the Bible is culturally changed? In other words, when a woman doesn't cut her hair as a sign of submission to God and her husband, how is that different from culture to culture? When the Bible speaks about the thigh being the beginning of nakedness, how is there any cultural context of that? None of the examples you have used have a biblical context of cultural address. All stand on their own.
The example you used for the woman showing her ankle seems to be one that lends more for my point than yours. It isn't the bible that has changed, it is the willingness of the people to follow the bible that has changed. That young man never had to battle the plague of internet porn or tv sex. He repented because he understood that if he looked on a woman in lust he had committed the act in his heart. Now, we are so desensitized by our irreverent culture that we have convinced ourselves that a woman wearing a tight fitting or revealing outfit has no part in the sin she solicits in the minds of men who see her. But the bible says she is as much at fault as the man.
On the issue of modesty, who draws the line on what is modest? Each individual? The culture? Or does the bible give us guidelines as to what we should follow?
I think your logic is highly suspect and biblically flawed. Don't give me any opinion, show me scripturally where the things you claim to be culturally targeted are shown to apply only to a specific group.
Post a Comment