A Recovering Legalist

Every once and a while you\’ll hear a preacher complaining about the fact the parishioners can\’t remember his sermon.  Somehow, we presume from their commentary on the this subject that if we remembered what they said, then perhaps we wouldn\’t have so many problems.

Never one to let a sleeping dog lie, then I\’ll provide my two cents on the subject.

First, those of us who would fret over whether or not someone remembers what we\’ve taught or preached are in a place of pride.

Seriously.  Just admit it now and get over it.  Dress it up in all of the humble platitudes you care to create, but it\’s still pride.  False humility is still false: it\’s still pride.  If we actually cared for someone\’s well being, then we wouldn\’t mind that people didn\’t remember our sermons.  We\’d simply find another Logos of God to plant in their soul.

So, here\’s the meat:

When we use recall of Biblical precepts and principles as the driving forces of our responses to everyday pressures, then we are close to practicing legalism.

That being said:

But occasionaly leaning on them is not what I\’m talking about.  I\’m specifically addressing the driving forces of who we are and how we respond.  There are some of us who believe the measurement of spirituality is quantified in the amount of scripture you learn and the skill you demonstrate in applying said scripture to your life.  In my opinion, that\’s just about as close to legalism as you can get.

But if learning and applying the scriptures were all it was about, then the Pharisees would have rocked Jesus\’s boat.  Rather He said,

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

You see, it\’s imperative that you know the spirit speaking the Word to you.  Scripture spoken by Satan is not truth:

For He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways.  In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone. (Luke 4:9-13)

So the suggestion he made to Jesus, to just go ahead and throw yourself off the temple and the context of scripture in which he couched it, was not truth, it was a lie.

As a follow on to this post, I would submit for your consideration, the following.

• A Slave serves from a point of fear, towards the purpose of self preservation.
• An Orphan serves from a point of loss, towards the purpose of identity
• A Son serves from the point of identity, towards the purpose of the Father\’s mission
• A King or a Priest, serves from a point of identity, exercising their authority in humility and service.

 Only the last two describe the Child of God: we are Kings and Priests (Rev. 5:10),  and Sons of God (Gal. 3:26)

Both the slave and the orphan serve for selfish reasons.

We can\’t categorically suggest that all former institutional church members can be sorted into the buckets I\’ve provided here.  But these are at least two factors to the mass exodus from the institutional organization called \’church.\’

In the video linked below, we observe a congregation who, never owning a copy of the Bible, each receive their own copy.  It\’s made the rounds in various social media forums for several years.

In those forums, someone almost always prefaces the video with a variation of the rhetorical question, \”do you love your Bible this much?\”  The implied answer is \”no,\” and self condemnation of  sin follows.  In this post, I\’m going to put forth two arguments as to why Americans don\’t seem to love their Bibles as much as the precious believers in the video below.

Used as a Tool to Enable Power

In America our view of the Bible is, more often than not, corrupted through the process of it being used for control and condemnation.  This is not a new phenomena: the scriptures have been misused in this way for millennia.  It\’s one of the reasons, outside of the necessity of the printing press, that the Bible remained inaccessible to the common man for so long.  It\’s why King James decreed that ekklésia would be translated \”church\” (a pagan temple) and not congregation or assembly, two words often seen in the Hebrew Bible (OT).

Hence, if you grew up or were indoctrinated in some churches, you could never read or hear the scriptures without a voice of condemnation.  To those people the church represents manipulation and condemnation.  It\’s easy to see then why these people don\’t love, read or revere their Bible.

Principles without Spirit

Most Christians have little or no understanding of walking in the Spirit.  We are taught instead to keep the law as describe by the Pastor – to live by the principles of their interpretation of the Bible.  In this endeavor we are to acquire knowledge of the Bible and it\’s laws.  The more laws you know, the more spiritual you become.  Spirituality is then measured by your ability to act in the correct manner based upon your accurate understanding and implementation of the Bible.

In this framework, the laity is expected to uphold the doctrine of the Pastor and perform within the Church only as the Pastor either dictates or would perform a given function himself.  In this context, the Pastor\’s desire is law, upheld and established by his interpretation and application of the scriptures.

As such, we view the Bible as a list of rules and laws we can\’t keep, as evidenced by repeated failures and corrections.  It begs the question, what\’s the use?

Why the Difference?

The people in the video haven\’t lived through either of those experiences. They\’ve lived only in the Spirit, being taught by God. To come into possession of the written Logos, the Word you\’ve walked with every day, can only be viewed as a blessing; not an opportunity for condemnation nor an iteration of failures.
 

Around the 2010 time frame, I danced around the topic of iniquity in some other blogs without really understanding its relationship to sin, transgressions, and bondage (or captivity and addiction).  But recently I’ve been encouraged to study the concept further. As a result, I’m challenging the defacto teaching around iniquity, sin, and transgression that suggests they are just different levels or severities of offense.  For example, one might suggest that abortion and murder is iniquity, stealing much money is a sin, but exceeding the speed limit by 5 MPH is just a transgression.

Let’s not create standards for sin

I’d like to suggest that such a concept of parceling sins into escalating offenses is corruption that enables us to create standards for behavior contrary to our personal belief systems by which we dispense judgments against humanity.  Just such a thing is what many Christians do best: create sorting systems for sins resulting in varying degrees of judgments, penance, and punishments – Dante’s Inferno, for example.

Consider then, Psalm 32:5

I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgave the iniquity of my sin.

Notice the precise construction of “the iniquity of my sin.”  The question is this: what is this thing, the “foo of my bar”?  Is Psalmist suggesting that God is addressing the silver used to create the jewelry, or He is addressing the jewelry created from the silver?

In Strong’s Concordance of the Bible, ‘iniquity’ is indexed as H5771.  It is derived from H5753, and it means “perversity.”  Sin, on the other hand, comes from H2403, and it means “an offense.”  So then, does the offense create perversity, or does perversity give rise to the offense?

Adam as an Example

Let’s look at the problem from something a bit more concrete: Adam and Eve.  Adam made a choice, Eve was deceived.  Both sinned.  We call it original sin, the lynchpin from which humanity is bound in unrighteousness.  So, did the sin cause the perversion, or did perversion cause the sin?  Many people will suggest that the reason Adam and Eve sinned is that satan corrupted God’s word; he created a lie or a perversion of the truth.  From this perversion then, sin and transgression arose.

In the New Testament Paul enumerated a number of sins he called the “deeds of the flesh.”

You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth … For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh … walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please … Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these (Gal. 5:7-21)

What is the flesh?

The question then becomes, what exactly is the flesh?  Well, for starters, it’s not your body.  Although it appears that Paul generally speaks of it in this way, the flesh is instead used to describe a contrary-to-God state from which sin flows, the human nature, or principle of evil, the law of sin that we carry with us.

But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.  I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. (Romans 7:20-25)

What we find then in scripture, is the concept of two natures: the sin nature, and the Holy Spirit nature.

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. (Galatians 5:16-18)

So, where does this leave us?  Is there a difference, does God forgive both?  Yes, He forgives both; yes there is a difference.  Therefore, Paul describes the law of sin as the controlling force responsible for sin.  The law of sin, then, is iniquity: and thou forgave the iniquity of my sin.

Just as walking in the Spirit is sourced from the spirit, waking in sin is sourced from the flesh or iniquity.  And just as there is a relationship with the Spirit, we must put to death our previous relationship with iniquity and give rise to the Holy Spirit within us:

Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry … in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside … since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

Colossians 3:5-11

Two ways to live

The lesson we take from this is that there are two ways to live: from the point of unrighteousness and from the point of righteousness.  While we must deal with sins and transgressions, we also must eliminate the source from which they are birthed: the iniquity itself.  

One way this is done is through the Armor of God (Ephesians 6).  Another way we do this is by rejecting the lies we believe and knowing the truth (John 8:32).  And yet another way we do this is by turning towards God with our heart, so that our minds may be unveiled (2 Corinthians 3:16).  Consider also that we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh (Col. 5:3) and working to put on a heart of compassion (Col. 3:12).

But most importantly, we must realize that dealing with sin and iniquity is different.  Sin is the “what.”  Iniquity is the “why.”  We can confess our sins of lust without dealing with the why of the lust.  And that’s where your journey to true freedom will begin: by rooting out the whys of your sins.

Experiencing Freedom

But the crux of the matter is that we must learn to live from a point of experience, rather than a point of declaration.  While it’s wonderful that God has declared us righteous, it is another thing entirely to live and walk from that perspective.

If you’re like me, it helps to see things.  This isn’t a perfect model, but it does help us visualize how we live in both the new and the old:

Addressing a Root Cause

In my experience, a lot of times the root causes of our walking in flesh, is sourced from emotional wounds. We’re compensating for things that have happened to us in the past.

Therefore, if we can address the hurts and wounds we carry with us, we can also address the propensity we have of walking in the flesh.

Please see my blog on Healing Emotional Wounds. I have learned that being healed of our hurts and wounds also frees us to better walk in freedom and righteousness.

I was recently reminded of a John MacArthur article entitled, \”Obedience: Love or Legalism?\” wherein Mr. MacArthur makes the argument that while it\’s better be obedient due to our love of Jesus, it\’s certainly our duty to be obedient to Jesus.  He goes on to say that that \”it is not quite right to say \’we obey out of love for Christ . . . and not out of duty.\’\”  He further underscores this sentiment by suggesting the Christian relationship to Jesus should be viewed as one of an \”abject slave,\” and that Jesus underscored this sentiment in Luke 17:7-10:

“Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come immediately and sit down to eat’?  But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink’?  He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he?  So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’”


When Christians approach spiritual problems – when they see conflict or paradoxes between spiritual truths and natural facts – they have the following choices:

1. They can enter into their prayer closet, asking God why they are not experiencing His truth as revealed in the Bible;
2. They can find someone who functions in the spiritual realm in which they’re having a problem and
   1. learn from them, or
   2. let them solve their problem;
3. They can create a doctrine explaining why something doesn’t work.

As an example: Cessationism

Case in point: when observing suffering in the world, and the failure of prayer and supplications to solve suffering (as the disciples apparently did), we wonder, is there something wrong with the Bible, rather than wondering is there something wrong with us? But since the Bible nor we can be wrong, there must be a third option: thus, we assert an unknown or misunderstood principle.

Dispensationalism is one of those principles we’ve created.  It’s used to explain the ages of Law and Grace (the Old Testament vs. the New Testament) and the cessation of some spiritual gifts. Likewise, it has been used to create a variation of the Apostolic Age, and consequently, it commonly confuses people by empowering the traditions of men rather than God’s truth.

The Law of the Sowing and Reaping

As with many things of God, the truth is so much simpler.  Before we learn something in the spirit, we must first understand its sibling in the natural.  At least that’s the pattern God had used.

Consider the law of sowing and reaping.  In the natural we understand that if we sow corn, we will reap corn and we will reap more than we sow – it’s why we have farmers.  But also consider that God provided it as a fundamental spiritual axiom.  He explicitly stated that if you follow my law, good things will happen to you, but if you disobey my law, bad things will happen:

See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing if you listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, which I am commanding you today; and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, by following other gods which you have not known.

Deut. 11:26-28

In other words, what they sowed, they also reaped: obedience in the natural resulted in blessing in natural and vice-versa.

The Law of Blessing

In the law of sowing and reaping, we receive based upon what we have done.  In the law of blessing, we receive based upon what God has done.

The law of sowing and reaping is the law that points us to the better or higher law, the law of blessing.  In the Old Testament, we experience the law of sowing and reaping, but in the New Testament, we experience the law of blessing.

In other words, in the OT, it’s about what we do.  In the NT, it’s about what God has done.

The Law of Repetition

Nowhere in scripture are the ideas of dispensations expressed. They are wholly man-made.

While we may be able to casually observe different seasons of time (e.g., the thousand-year reign of Christ), declaring one season from another is not the method by which God provides guidance to His people. A fundamental tenant within dispensationalism is the idea of God doesn’t do that anymore.

In other words, the age of Human Government has been tried and found lacking, so God isn’t going to do that again; neither will the thousand-year reign of Christ will happen more than once.

But there are at least two laws established by God to provide enlightenment. First is the law of seasons and signs, and secondly, the law of repetition:

What has been, it is what will be, and what has been done, it is what will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times {those} things which have not been done – saying, ‘My plan will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure;

Isaiah 46:10

In simplest terms, if you want to know what is coming in the future, then look to the past. However, this cannot be done in human terms: we can’t just cherry pick some verses and say with confidence, “we’re in this or that season of time”, or “God is doing this again today, or in the near future.”

In order to get on page with God, there must be a prophet:

Certainly, the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret plan to His servants the prophets.

Amos 3:7

However, because of the prevalence of dispensational thought within our congregations, we simply ignore that verse: we strip it of its God-breathed relevance – making it not the word of God to be believed or used today – because God doesn’t do that anymore.

The Principle Axioms

In the OT, a primary lesson or axiom is the power of sin. As such, we find that if you touch a leper, you become unclean. 

But in the NT, the primary lesson is the power of God’s love: if you touch a leper, they become clean.

Summary

So then, we find that the economy of God dealing with Man has nothing to do with various dispensations, but with precept upon precept, line upon line (Isa. 28:10), teaching us in the natural the principles of the spiritual, as the author of Hebrews explained when suggesting that his audience leave the elementary doctrines of the Christ.

My suggestion is that we leave dispensationalism where it belongs: in the annals of the doctrines and traditions of men. Where such things are created to explain away the spiritual truths of God that stand in conflict with the facts of the natural observed by those who place their faith in reason rather than truth.

Mike Livingstone has an excellent blog on what he calls Worshiptainment.

What is interesting about his blog is that it confirms the problem without actually realizing it.  A. W. Tozer acknowledged the worshiptainment problem in his day, when worship music – by many definitions – was being done right. Which means even though Mr. Livingstone makes valid points regarding the entertainment factor present in some churches, we are still beating around the bush and haven\’t actually yet flushed out the fox.  In other words, if worship services were a problem in Tozer\’s day, then why do we draw the cross-hairs on worship services today?

It\’s a particularly telling sentinel that, when researching the problem further, we generally find the blame rests with the congregation: \”they won\’t come unless { some reason }\”. Why? Because it mimics what the average Christian collectives already do.

Where the rubber meets the Road

Most Christians – throughout history – have read the Bible and compared it with the facts around them. Unfortunately, they\’re conflicted when truth doesn\’t match facts. In such a situation, they have several options:

1. Create a doctrine that explains why their experience (facts) don\’t match the truth observed in Scripture. 
• Example: Cessation of the Spiritual Gifts.
2. Find someone that actually functions in the manner in which the Bible describes (e.g., they prayed for healing and it didn\’t work – find someone for which it does work)
3. Go back to their prayer closet and talk to God about it – determine why they\’re not seeing His truth acted out in their experiences

What most Christians don\’t understand – because it\’s simply not taught in our churches – is that facts will stand in apparent contradiction with truth.  What God wants however, is someone who is willing to stand in truth until the facts properly align.  If you can\’t dismiss your questions regarding the facts you observe in the light of the truth you know, you\’ll never move into the truth.  You\’ll either live in conflict, or dismiss it entirely.

In example, consider the story of Jonathan slaying the Philistines (1 Samuel 14).  He believed the revelation of God, was inspired to act, and acted upon the revealed truth in spite of the apparent facts.

The facts of the situation were that Jonathan was tactically disadvantaged: there was only two of them, but unknown numbers of the enemy; the enemy was on top of a hill, they were in a valley; Jonathan had to crawl  on his hands and knees, in full sight of the enemy, just to enter the battle.  The truth of the situation was in stark contrast to the facts of the situation.

Creating New Doctrine to Match Facts instead of Truth

Scripture clearly teaches that God desires His will be performed on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:9-13).  There are any number of conclusions and adjunct scriptural evidences that we could draw upon to examine various facts in conflict with this truth.  Consider sickness, for example.

Most Christians will tell you that it\’s God\’s will for you to be sick – it\’s simply factual that people are sick, and you gotta die somehow, and God will somehow use it as a blessing.  Nevertheless, truth says otherwise.  First, the model prayer stands in direct conflict with the facts.  Secondly, every time Jesus is recorded encountering sickness, He destroys it.  Thirdly, Jesus perfectly represented and performed the will of God (here), and finally, if God desires us to be sick now, then there must be sickness in heaven.

But seeing that we can\’t have it that way, we create a new doctrine.  We call the spiritual gifts \’Apostolic Gifts,\’ and then have them cease.  I\’ll leave the rest of the quandary for you to sort out.

The Better Way

What\’s lovely about the outcomes referenced in Mr. Livingstone\’s blog is that it is presumable that the church actually went back to their prayer closet – so to speak – and changed their attitudes and position relative to God.  In other words, they observed that the facts didn\’t match the truth and instead of casting blame or creating a doctrine, listened to Holy Spirit and understood that they themselves needed to make a change.

Their explanation of the success is that \”people are hungry for the word of God.\”  If by that one means preaching and teaching, then I\’ll respectfully disagree.  But if by that one means they\’re hungry for a relationship with God, then we\’re on the same page.

God teaches us that a cognizant relationship with Him begins with a turning of the heart, not with the preaching of the word and understanding with the mind:

but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away (2 Cor. 3:16)

Which is completely opposite of what we hear today: preach the word so people can learn – move head knowledge into the heart.

When a person or congregation returns or is revived, it\’s not by a will of the mind – it\’s a surrendering of the heart, from which the mind follows after the veil is removed.

What is the greatest travesty of the modern church era?

Bad music?  Bad preaching?  Hyper-grace?  Expecting to see signs, wonders and healing?  Speaking in tongues?

I submit to you, it\’s none of those things.  And while this next statement may seem out of context, it\’s not: I used to think that it was impossible to be too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good.  I honesty didn\’t understand the concept: how could the two be in conflict with one another?  But I\’ve come to realize that being heavenly minded is the thing that our churches try to instill – literally.

We\’re told that heaven is better than this life.  We\’re told that misery, trials and tribulations are our lot while \”in the flesh,\” but not to worry: heaven is better.  Just remember where you\’re headed; and while you\’re at it, try to convince some others to come along with you because God made a better place for us and He wants us to be with Him there – where there\’s no misery, no tears and no worries (a seemingly difficult truth in light of Revelation 21:1-4 and modern preaching, I might add).

In essence, heaven is the goal, the touchdown and even to some, the pay-back for all of those who didn\’t choose their righteous path towards heaven.

Therefore, I submit to you that the travesty that modern preaching has foisted upon humanity is that heaven is the thing to be sought and obtained.  In doing so, we have turned the pursuit of heaven into our religion, the gospel into it\’s foundational axiom, and Jesus into it\’s causality.

In setting heaven as the goalpost, we have made Jesus merely a bystander along the way in our religion of seeking something  better.

We are so consumed with exiting our current sufferings that we have rejected the truth that exists in Jesus

Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, “Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.  And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.”

When we practice the Religion of Heaven, Jesus becomes a tool and the Bible our faith object.  In doing so, we find ourselves searching the scriptures looking for the next nugget to propel us back to the plateau of happy thoughts and abject rejection of ourselves and our earthly habitation.  And in doing so, we take offense in Jesus by make Him a mere steppingstone in our religion of the Journey to Something Better, aka, Heaven.

The Enemy has so infiltrated the Christian culture that we have come to believe that Heaven is our inheritance, the Bible is our faith object and the pastor/teacher is our helper.  The truth is that Jesus is our inheritance, Holy Spirit is our Helper, and God is our Faith Object.

In the section of scripture often called the beatitudes, (be of this attitude), we find this tidbit of wisdom:

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God  (Matthew 5:8)

The average pastor teaches this section of scripture as something \”we should be,\” or \”attitudes we should have,\” but at the same time, re-qualifies this verse as justifying moral excellence.  In other words, they\’re teaching that if you\’re morally excellent, you\’ll see or find God.  The problem with this bit of tortured reasoning is that the natural man can\’t achieve moral excellence on his own – only Jesus can bring moral excellence to the human condition.

So then, what are we to make of this scripture?  What does it mean to be \’pure in heart\’; if not morality, then what?

When we understand the definition of pure, the meaning begins to come into focus:

Not mixed or adulterated with other material

An impure heart is a unfocused heart, it is a heart with split allegiance or desires.

Matthew 5:8 comes into focus when we understand that it\’s not referring to moral purity (something unobtainable) but focus purity (something that is obtainable): a heart completely focused upon, and surrendered to, Jesus.

Over the years, the church has designed alternative worship objects: such as pastor worship, bible worship, experience worship, educational worship and heaven worship – just to name a few.  All of these elements are designed to create within us an impure heart – a heart not focused on a single element, that being Jesus Christ.  We cannot set our hearts on heaven and also on Jesus.  A pure heart is an undivided heart, just as pure gold and pure silver have no other defiling elements.

Therefore, the greatest travesty of the modern church era is that it creates impure hearts within people through the encouragement to desire things other than Jesus; to encourage faith in things other than Jesus; to teach that life with Jesus Christ in the here-and-now is not something to be desired more than arriving in heaven.

Yes, furthermore, I count everything as loss compared to the possession of the priceless privilege (the overwhelming preciousness, the surpassing worth, and supreme advantage) of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord and of progressively becoming more deeply and intimately acquainted with Him [of perceiving and recognizing and understanding Him more fully and clearly]. For His sake I have lost everything and consider it all to be mere rubbish (refuse, dregs), in order that I may win (gain) Christ (the Anointed One)  (Philippians 3:8) 

Mockery is an attitude, belief or action born out of an accusation of deceit.

To live your life in such a way that you seek first the things of God, but then live in fear, worry or doubt that your needs will be met, is mocking God.

Profound disapproval and disgust goes hand in hand with thinking that God will not provide.