A response to my friend Sonya

My friend Sonya writes:

Just wondering if maybe the fundermentalists started with right motives in the attempt to say our freedom does not give us a license to gratify our sinful nature. I can see, even today, that we need to be careful in our freedom to not go over-the-top. We are held to obedience and holiness unto God (not man). I agree with what you say; just also know man is extremely selfish and without spiritual growth can fall into a false doctrine just as bad as fundermentalism of ALL things our permissable in our freedom.

Thanks Sonya for taking the time to read my blog. Yes of course, fundamentalism started with right and pure motives, as do so many things. And as you have observed, we humans are very good at mucking things up.

You are also right that we are not to use our liberty in Jesus and God's grace to justify our sin. And I would agree that obedience to God is a central point. But it is all in the execution. REQUIRED obedience is not obedience, but compliance. I do not love my wife because I HAVE to, but because I WANT to. We do not love and obey God because we HAVE to, but because we WANT to. It is a love response, not a responsibility response, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Such a response, Jesus implies, will naturally fulfill the entire law. So to your point of not falling into error where all things are permissible (although Paul argues that all things actually ARE permissible, just not good for us) acting out of love will give us a natural vaccination against excess.

Therefore, our energy should be focused on loving God with our entire being and resources, and loving others even as we love ourselves, NOT in trying to keep rules, be holy, or even obey God. This probably sounds like heresy, but if you think about it for a while you will find it is inescapable. The end (holiness) does not justify the means (rules). If it did, then the Law would have been able to make us holy, and the NT is clear that they Law cannot make us righteous. God had to "declare" us holy by faith. It naturally and logically follows that we do not live to earn what was given to us freely by grace. Just as I do not love and cherish my wife after she declared her love for me so that I could earn or prove I am worthy of her love. I love and cherish her because I love and cherish her.

But now we come to your point I think and I will continue to use the marriage analogy. I love my wife and she loves me. We cannot earn each other's love, it is given freely, undeserved. But, and I think this is your point, I may need to learn how to express that love so that she clearly hears me in language and actions that communicate that truth. I need to get "me" out of the way so that love can rule in everything that I say, think and do. These are not "rules" but examples and tools I learn from others, the Bible itself, and even by listening closely to my wife. I "grow" in my relationship which also deepens the love between my wife and I. We can now share our love with our family (especially children if God gives you children) and others. Our love overflows out to others around us. Do you see the subtle difference?

I believe this is the same way we need to approach our relationship with God. We did not earn his love, and we can never earn his love. We did not deserve his love, and we can never deserve his love. He gave it, freely, as an act of Grace. Therefore, I can move past the fact that I don't deserve it and I can't earn it to living in it and enjoying it, learning the language of love from God, and sharing that love with others. We deepen our relationship with him, not because there are rules, but because we see examples and tools in the Bible and others that we can use to enhance our relationship. We learn to get "me" out of the way, to "crucify" ourselves "with Christ". Most importantly, we spend time with God, listening to him, learning his love language. Then we become filled with his love, and that overflows to others around us.

Legalism and the focus on rules, performance (personal holiness) and the letter of the "Law" (which is another word for "rules") takes us away from love and moves us to responsibility and duty. This is backwards but a common approach among fundamentalists and legalists - do what is right and the feelings will follow. If I was told that once, I was told that a million times.

Instead, I believe that the Bible has the correct pattern - Love God first. Responsibility and duty flows from that. Again, it is my love for my wife that makes me responsible and empowers me to perform my duties as a leader, partner, husband and father. If I act responsibly, if I perform my duties, I may still miss out on love. Yes, I will be a leader, partner, husband and father, but where is the love? I could have a perfect shell of a marriage and a family that is empty and dead inside. Remember Jesus analogy of the whitewashed tombs filled with dead men's bones?

The prophet Isaiah described it best when he said that the Jews would enter the temple to worship God (duty and responsibility) and lift their hands to praise him, but they were covered in blood from their idolatry. Isaiah went on to describe it in words quoted in the NT - they draw near to me with their lips (duty, works, responsibility) but their hearts are far from me. For me, legalism is simply getting the order backwards - rules and works before love.

You say that we are held to obedience and holiness to God not man. Yes, but it is love that binds us to obedience and God bestows holiness on us because we cannot earn it.

I hope this helps.