Lawlessness Is The New Legalism

Many churches pride themselves in speaking out against the enslaving evils of legalism. Pastors are always reminding their congregation to not get distracted by rules and regulations but to just concentrate on Jesus. Well, that's great. Or is it? Legalism has become such a negative buzz word that we no longer really know what it means. I'm a guy who likes to have words nicely defined. So, before we continue our little discussion on legalism, let's give it a definition.

In my understanding, legalism is an overemphasis on law rather than on God which usually results in the creation of additional rules. Legalists typically become judgmental of those who violate these laws. In short, legalism is idolatry. It's putting man-made laws above God Himself.


So, than what's with my peculiar title? If legalism is the overemphasis of law how can lawlessness be the new legalism? Didn't I just contradict myself? Just a few months ago I would have answered yes to that very question. However, then I got to thinking about the way that we often label people as legalists.

We take people who don't listen to rock or families that don't watch R-rated movies or girls who only wear dresses and then label them legalists. But what are we focusing on? The outward appearance. Laws. Rules.

There are many people in churches today who have strict rules about not having strict rules and then when people violate their no-rule rules they judge them for being judgmental.

I've seen families who homeschool their kids, don't listen to anything with a beat, hardly every watches movies, only read certain kinds of books, would never hear of dancing, dress in a very conservative way and attend a Fundamentalist, family-integrated church. But no one could ever justly call them legalists. They aren't focusing on rules. They're focusing on Jesus and this has caused them to live their lives in a certain way. They don't judge others who don't have their same standards, but focus on living their lives in a way that would please God.

On the flip side, I've seen believers who walk around like they're at a pop culture festival and live very legalistic lives. They may not think they have rules about dress or media, but they actually do. Their rules just have the extra convenience of commanding them to act 'lawlessly'. When people use the argument that the Bible never says "thou shalt not " what are they focusing on? The law. They aren't looking at the heart behind the law. Just the law and the law doesn't mention the particulars. They are very dedicated to their anti-rule rules and will judge and label anyone of violates them.

But before I start judging the lawless legalists, I must remind myself that we're all legalists at heart. We all have this natural, God-given draw toward order and it's much easier for that order to be controlled by rules rather than love.

We must all guard ourselves against the dangerous snares of legalism. At the end of day, if you're driving down a precarious road it doesn't really matter if you fall into the ditch to your left or the ditch to your right.

Election in Perspective

My overall emotion concerning Tuesday's mid-term elections is enthusiasm. Granted, things didn't go just as I would have wanted them. I'm disappointed that Brenna Findley will not be our next attorney general and that we have to put up with Congressman Boswell for another two years.

However, by and large, I'm pleased with the election's outcome. Personally knowing some of the candidates has added a whole new dimension to this year's election. I'm very excited that young Josh Cockroft won his state house race in Oklahoma.

I'm also very glad that Kim Pearson won her race. I remember running into Mrs. Pearson shortly after she had announced her candidacy. Though she did express a great deal of enthusiasm, she also seemed reluctant to show too much optimism. I remember her commenting that at least she would make her opponent spend some of that Union money. Now she's going to the Iowa House!

And I couldn't be more thrilled for Kent Sorenson. His opponent played dirty and took some really low shots. But he came out the victor. I honestly can't help but think that he's invincible now. There's really no mud left to sling at him. They're already unleashed every piece of ammunition they had and it still couldn't bring him down.

I believe that this election, particularly the race of Iowa governor, illustrates a very interesting point. The day after the election I was riding around with one of my co-workers. Now, you have to understand that my co-worker is an unsaved, die-hard Democrat that practically worships the ground President Obama steps on (that really isn't much of an exaggeration.) However, when it was announced over the radio that Terry Branstad had soundly beaten Governor Chet Culver, he pumped his fist and said, "Good. That's what he gets."

Upon further questioning, I discovered that my co-worker, like a lot of people, was mad at Culver. Very mad. In fact, I can't help but wonder if the Republicans could have won that race even if they had nominated Joe Blow from Anywhere City.

However, that wasn't what I found so interesting. What I found interesting was that my co-worker wasn't mad at Governor Culver because of his decisions, but because of his indecision. He felt like his governor never took a stand or was wiling to make the really hard calls. To me, that was just a great remember of the need for leaders to take a stand and be decisive. No decision at all is almost worse than a bad one. I believe that the success of this new movement which was established this year will depend on their ability to not fall into the trap of limp-wristed indecision.

The issue on the Iowa ballot which probably carried the most long term weight was the judicial retention vote. I was very pleased to see that vote go in our favor. Iowa sent a very strong message that they will not stand for judicial tyranny or the obstruction of marriage. We the people did our job of keeping wickedness at bay. We should be excited about the way the vote turned out.

However, it is also important to remember that this is not the answer. Getting righteous people into office and keeping our laws pure of wickedness is very, very important. But at the same time we mustn't put too much stock in politics. Politicians, even the best among them, will fail. The real answer is a change of heart in our people. Real change will come only after we've seen a spiritual awakening in this land. While I'm very glad to see that the political sphere may be turning back in our favor (at least for the time being), I believe it is important that the ambassadors of Christ keep our eye on the ball and not become enchanted by the whimsical movements of this age.

Three Things I Hate About The Calvinist-Arminian Debate

Before I tell you the three things I hate about the Calvinist-Arminian debate, I first need to clarify some things. This is an important issue and I'm not meaning to take away from that fact. However, I think that the way in which we Christians have gone about discussing this issue has become rather unhelpful. If we better the means in which we address this issue it'll better the outcome of any debate.

For the purpose of making a point I'm not going to give a long, drawn out description of my opinion of the Calvinism-Arminianism issue. However, if you are interested in a brief summary of my beliefs, I'd encourage you to check out this sermon by Mark Driscoll. As I've stated before, I don't agree with all Mark Driscoll's stuff, however, he does a nice job of summarizing his beliefs on this issue, which I happen to be in full agreement with.

#1. The names.
In the early Church, Christians use to say that they were of Paul or of Apollos. Now we say that we're of John Calvin or of Jacob Arminius. We haven't made much forward progress, have we? Not only that, but the names are kind of misnomers. Neither Calvin nor Arminius were in full agreement with the schools of thought that would later bare their names. John Calvin never advocated Limited Atonement and Arminius, while he did express some doubts, never denied the doctrine of Eternal Security in any of speeches or writings.


The fact is, we can't put too much stock in any human being, even great Christian leaders. Calvin and Arminius were both great men who loved Jesus. However, they were also both sinners. As created creatures, we naturally feel the need for a hero. Since we can't physically see God we tend to idolize someone we can see. While they're is nothing wrong with having people we like and admire, we need to remember that all are sinners. We can't every fully trust any sinners, even great theologically minded sinners.

#2. The points.
In 1610, the Arminians got together for an event called the Remonstrance, or Protest. During this event they came up with five doctrines which directly defied Calvinism, which had been a Protestant staple since the Reformation. In response, the Calvinists held a synod at Dort (pictured) and came up with the Five Points of Calvinism, all of which were handpicked to discredit the Five Points of Arminianism.

This is really, really bad way to do theology. We don't create doctrine in response to someone else's doctrines. We get our doctrine from the Bible. The result of the current five-point system is that instead of discussing Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, we end up arguing over Irresistible Grace, Unconditional Election and the Perseverance of the Saints. The debate quickly becomes academic rather than biblical.

Personally, I always find it really frustrating when I try talking to someone about this issue and they refuse to address the Scriptures. Everyone has a cute illustration or catchy little quotable to prove the infallibility of their point. Meanwhile, the Bible stays on the shelf.

#3. The divisions.
There are certain things that should divide us. If someone tells you that Jesus wasn't God or that the earth was created by aliens, run from them like Forest Gump. However, I don't believe this should be a dividing issue. And yet it is.

It always amazes to see how willing credobaptists, paedobaptism, charismatics, cessationists, Complementarians and Egalitarians are to get together and sing Kum Ba Yah providing that they agree on the Calvinist-Arminian issue. However, if they agree on nearly everything else but can't agree on predestination, they suddenly become die hard separationists.

Honestly, I can't help but wonder if it has become more of a pride issue. Because if you examine this issue in light of many of the other truths, it really isn't that big a deal. It's important, but not quite as important as we make it out to be. However, this topic has become the defining issue within Christian circles. I once heard some one say that there are only three kinds of Christians. Calvinists, Arminians and Catholics. This debate has been so heated for so long that no one is willing to back down.

I think it is vital to remember that this is an in house debate. At the end of the day, we're on the same team. Granted, the Body of Christ will always have its little family quarrels. That's nothing new. Some times these disagreement will even create a need for us to separate, just as Paul and Barabbas did. However, that doesn't mean the Church of Jesus needs to be consumed in hate and in-striving. Rather, let us remember that we are one Body with one Goal.

Loving the Unpopular Side of God

Lately, I've been conducting a bit of a social experiment. On this site and elsewhere I've been asking people what their favorite attribute of God is. I've yet to have anyone tell me that they just love God's justice and holy anger. But this came as no surprise.

It seems that we no longer like talking about the side of God that burnt whole civilizations to a crisp or killed even His children on the spot for their sin.

Since we don't want to come across as fire-and-brimstone extremists, we prefer to talk about love, mercy, grace and all those non-offensive attributes of God. However, there are many dangerous repercussions of this. I'll list two of them.

#1: It is an inaccurate portrayal of God. God is love. No one is denying that. Everything He does is saturated in pure, undefiled love. But God is also just. Therefore, everything that He does is also immersed in justice.

One of the most common forms of idolatry today is the worship of our favorite part of God. Look at one Mark Driscoll says on the subject,

Jesus is not a nice old man in a button-up cardigan sweater and loafers singing happy songs while loading everyone onto a trolley headed to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe to meet King Friday like some Mr. Rogers clone. That god is the neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that wants to bless everyone, does not care what you call him/her/it/they, never gets angry, and would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell. This mythical Sky Fairy is increasingly mistaken for Jesus, however, by many young pastors and Christians I have met who don’t want the gospel to be the offensive and foolish stumbling block that it is. So they remake Jesus in to a feathered-hair fairy in lavender tights and take the sword of Revelation out of his hand, replacing it with a daisy.

When Moses asked God to identify Himself, the Lord said that He was Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. I am that I am or I will be who I will be. God is who He is and it's not for us to start picking and choosing our favorite parts of Him. We can't hold to the God who feeds the five thousand and not to the God who destroyed the Canaanites and is coming back with a sword in His hand.

This is when people start accusing me of worshiping a mean, selfish God who just wants to strike everyone will lightning. Not so. I worship a God of both love and justice. I believe that to be the God of the Bible. Every just thing God does is sprinkled with love and every loving thing He does is sprinkled with justice. This is why Jesus had to die. Because sin has to be punished.

I love what John Piper has to say,

We are creatures, and our Creator is not bound or obligated to give us anything - not life or health or anything. He gives, He takes, and He does us no injustice...And besides being creatures with no claim on our Creator, we are sinners...All we deserve from Him is judgment. Therefore, every breath we take, every time our heart beats, every day the sun rises, every moment we see with our eyes or hear with our ears or speak with our mouths or walk with our legs is, for now, a free and undeserved gift to sinners who deserve only judgment.

God doesn't owe us anything but wrath. The fact that you and I are still breathing right now is a testament to our Father's mercy. For some reason we think God owes us life and comfort and a free choice. But He doesn't. If He gave us what He owes us we'd all be in Hell right now.

For those who would argue that I'm still making God out to be a tyrant, let me first say that God has every right to be a tyrant. Shall the clay say to the Potter why have You made this way? God is our Creator and therefore our Owner. A painter has the right to poke holes in His own masterpiece.

But second, we must remember how we define right and wrong. We don't define who God is based on our own understandings of morality. We define morality based on who God is.

#2: It cheapens the rest of God's attributes. When we look at what God does and we think God is unloving, what are we saying? We're saying that God owes us love. But, if He owes us love, grace and mercy than those attributes are meaningless. When we start with love, God's justice looks cruel. But when we start with justice, God's love looks so much more amazing.

Likewise, when we begin to understand how worthless we are in the presence of an Almighty God, it should make us stand in awe of God's deep love. When we begin to see ourselves as sinful enemies of God who justly deserve death and Hell, the fact that God has offered us fellowship with Him is all the more incredible.




That is the desire for my own life. That I learn to love the unpopular side of God. The side that everyone else shoves under the rug. I want to claim that awesome, almighty Judge as my Daddy. Lightning bolts and all.

Independence: A Tragic Mindset

Not too long ago, I made the acquaintance of Jay Lauser. This is a young man who has an obvious passion for the things of the Lord and is very diligent in using his talents and abilities for the glory of God. One of these abilities is writing. Jay has an incredible grasp for words. Therefore, I asked him to guest post for this blog. I can't even begin to tell you how pleased I am with the article Jay sent me. I think he puts our fingers on the pulse of one of the most commonly overlooked problems among Christian youth. I hope you all get as much out of this piece as I did.

--

“I just want to find out if I can do it on my own.”

“I want to get out of all these rules and limits and live on my own.”

“I don't want to be dependent on other people.”

“I can do it.”

“I need to live on my own.”

All of the above are statements that I hear pretty often from teenagers approaching their 'mature' years of 18-25 or so. Honestly, I hear them all too often for my taste. This is because they are representative of an attitude of independence that is fundamentally in opposition with God.

Sadly, I hear these slogans from Christians and from Rebelutionaries. This is tragic, to my mind. And I believe that it poses a serious danger to the success of the Rebelution and to the impact of the Church on our generation.

Now that I have made everyone really mad, I better go back up those rather outrageous claims. :D

There are four words which I need to define for the context of this article: Freedom, Liberty, Responsibility, and Independence. People have a strong tendency to equivocate using these words, which is assisted by the wide range of meanings that they can have. Please note that I am not limiting their definitions or meanings at all: I am only locking down how I am going to use them in this post for clarity's sake.

Freedom: A state of exemption from the power or control of another.

Liberty: Freedom to do what is right.

Responsibility: The state of being accountable for a trust reposed.

Independence: Freedom from support or authority of another. (Focus is on freedom from support in this post.)

A few quick remarks on these definitions:

I will really only be talking about independence. But I need the other words defined so that I can define it properly.

No one is free. And no one should try to be free. This would be rebellion against God.

Everyone ought to have liberty. We should seek liberty, but not independence. A lot of people point at liberty and say 'that is good' and then go try to acquire independence instead.

Everyone has a responsibility. No one should shirk their duty, and everyone has a duty to others. Refusing to work with other people is a violation of your responsibility. A lot of people say they are trying to be responsible, but are really trying to be independent. Do not get responsibility and independence mixed up.

No one but God is truly independent. That is actually written into the definition in Webster's 1828:

“1. Not dependent; not subject to the control of others; not subordinate. God is the only being who is perfectly independent.”

This makes sense. We cannot escape the necessity of things outside of ourselves. That is an inherent part of our created, finite nature.

My first point against an independent mindset, therefore, is immediately self-evident. To seek to be more independent than we already are is an attempt to be more self-sufficient than God made us. We are, in effect, striving after the supremacy of God. God made us inherently reliant on others. That is His plan. And to try to exclude those support systems from our lives is extremely prideful, not to say insane. We should rather seek for more support, while still maintaining our responsibilities.

The Rebelution has nobly resurrected a mindset in our youth. It is a good mindset, and in fact, it is the mindset that has built empires, preserved liberty, and in many other ways glorified God throughout the ages. But like all good things, Satan loves to twist it with his sophistry and render it damaging to the kingdom of God.

And so now there has been a resurrection of another mindset that feeds off of some of the concepts in the Rebelution, but which is contrary to it. This mindset rejects two of the three pillars of the Rebelution, and focuses exclusively on the third (which, obviously, cannot stand alone). They refuse to show Character by yielding to their pride, they block all Collaboration from mentors and peers alike, and yet they stubbornly claim Competence to be their savior.

Scripture is very clear that God wants each person to rely on others, to be interconnected and interdependent in His pattern for the network of society. I will quote a few Scriptures here to demonstrate this, but do not expect an exhaustive list, as that would be... exhausting. ;)

Romans 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

Ephesians 4:15-16 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Ephesians 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

That last one needs a bit of explanation, I admit. :)

First notice Ephesians 4:15-16, which talks about the body of Christ, with Christ as the head, and the body being joined together, each part requiring the others (for more on that, study Romans 12). Then look back at Ephesians 5:23-24. Paul deliberately makes a strong parallel between the family and the church, asserting that they are structured the same.

The conclusion is that the family, like the church, is designed to work in harmony with itself, each member supporting and relying on the others, each part adding to the whole. Therefore, trying to go off and live on your own as a teenager, merely to assert or test or prove your independence, is folly of the highest degree. In general (from what I have learned, and the Bible bears with me), it is best for you to be under your father, and thus a part of your family, until you are married. This is a far cry from the modern practice of teenagers leaving the home in all but name in high school, before they every even get to college.

For us to receive God's blessings, we need to allow Him to work through others in our lives to bless us. If we try to rely on none but ourselves, we are actually blocking out God.

And thus is my assertion. It is radical and extreme, I know. But if you read my blog, you know that doesn't bother me at all. ;)

So now it is your turn to make yourselves heard in the comments!

Have you seen this mindset in your life? Have you seen it in others? How has it affected you? And how do you think you could change your life to avoid it?

--

Jay Lauser, aka Sir Emeth Mimetes, is a homeschooled Rebelutionary writer passionate for God. He divides his time between his many projects and his freelancing web design and development business. He blogs at http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com.

The Need for Young Male Leaders

Okay, I have a confession to make. I'm not the biggest Mark Driscoll fan. Don't get me wrong. I love him as brother in Christ. He's a tremendous preacher. I agree with about 90% of his theology (which is actually pretty good for me). No one can deny that he knows how to reach the very anti-Christian culture of Seattle, Washington. Likewise, I have no doubt that God has used him in great ways and will continue to do so.

However, there are a few cases in which I wish he'd be a little less crude and I disagree with some elements of his philosophy of ministry. That said, he's very much a modern John the Baptist. Blunt, direct, rugged and real. He certainly drives a point home in this video.

While I might not have worded it quite like that, I definitely agree with what Pastor Mark is saying. Though, while Driscoll puts most the blame on the Church, I think that we young men are also the blame. The young men in our churches have failed to step up to the plate. In most churches, young men are more rebel than leader.

We as men have the duty and God-given responsibility to be leaders. We were designed, according to our Father's perfect plan, to take the initiative. Women are designed to respond to our initiative. But, with us guys failing in our responsibilities, women have forced to step in any many areas that are designed for men.

If the Body of Christ is going to prosper, we need men to be leaders. They need to be heads of their families, their businesses, their communities and their churches. And we, as the succeeding generation, need to begin right where we are.

We must never forget that we, whether we like it or not, are the leaders of the future. We will either lead with our action and inaction. So, the question is not whether or not we will be leaders, but what kind of leaders we will be.

It is vital that we have a vision for the future. Regardless of what are vocation may be - be it pastor, missionary, elected official, movie directer, businessman or janitor (I'm sorry, it's custodian) - we need to have an idea of how to best live our life for the glory of God.

So, my challenge to my fellow guys is to simply be men. Take the initiative. Make a stand. Learn how to lead. Serve others. Have a God-centered vision. Live in light of eternity. Lead by example. This is key to the success of the Church.

10 Marks of the Early Church

While doing some research, I came across these ten characteristics of the early Church. The way the Church acted toward the increasingly corrupt Roman culture is a great model for us today as we too try to interact with a society that is increasing more antagonistic toward the Way of God.

1- They refused to attend blood thirsty entertainment. They wouldn’t go to gladiatorial events because they believed it defiled humans who were created in the image of God. This made them appear to be anti-social. Tertullian and Augustine both write about these events in a negative light.

God's principles should always trump society's feeble definitions of morality. The early Christians could have said, "Well, the Scriptures never actually say, 'Thou shalt not go to gladiatorial games.' Therefore, it isn't really a sin to go watch people kill others for sport." But, instead, they chose to travel the road less taken. They looked at the Word of God as a whole and saw that certain principles did not align with their culture's view of entertainment. Therefore, they chose abstinence in an age of indulgence.

2- They did not serve in the military to support Caesar’s wars of conquest, which made them appear weak.

Of course, the liberals love this one. They like to scribble pacifism all over the early Church. However, the matter wasn't so much war itself, but the cause of the war. The wars which the Roman Empire had started at this time weren't about defending the people or punishing wickedness - the extent of the government's jurisdiction. It was about feeding Caesar's blood lust. Therefore, the early saints drew a line in the sand and said that they would have no part in helping the government defy God's Word.

3- They were against abortion and infanticide. In this culture, both were considered acceptable. To throw your baby out on the dung heap if you didn’t want it was not taboo.

You want to know what Christian extremism really is? It'll tell you. These Christian had such an extreme love for people they had never met that they would go wading, knee deep, in the dung piles, listening for the cries of abandon newborns. When they would find them, they would not only nurse the children back to health but they would also raise them as if they were their own offspring. That is love in action.

4- They empowered women by showing their value and dignity in places of learning and service which had previously been exclusively for men. Christians held women in high regard and treasured them rather than viewing them as just a step above expendable children and servants.

Until recently, chivalry has always been a prominent fixture in the Body of Christ. Unfortunately, the Feminist movement has convinced society that valuing women for their unique and God-given traits is sexist and primitive. We guys need to make sure that we treat ladies with respect and honor.

5- They were against sex outside of marriage. This fidelity was considered odd and against culture. Sex was viewed as nothing more than a desire like eating or sleeping. Christians held a high view of the bed and kept it pure and would not engage in sex outside of marriage.

I don't think I really need to explain how this relates to our current culture. Just take comfort in the fact that saints of God have been fighting the same battles for centuries. The God who gave them victory then can still give us victory today.

6- They were against homosexual relationships. This was odd in a time when same sex practice was not frowned upon.

There is nothing new under the sun. Our adversary has been trying the same old tricks all throughout history. The traditional view of marriage was not something a bunch of bigots tried to push onto the Bible. It's what God designed and what His Church has been fighting for since the beginning.

7- They were exceptionally generous with their resources. They shared what they had with one another and welcomed others in with a hospitality that was unparalleled.

Generosity and hospitality are two components that I believe are sadly missing from the Church today. We need to once again begin displaying love in practical, everyday ways.

8- They were radically for the poor. In a time when the poor and downtrodden were viewed as getting what they deserved, they were aggressively committed to loving and serving people in the margins of society.

In a poverty-stricken age, the Christians did not waste their time worrying about their own needs. Rather, they went out of their way to actively serve others.

9- They mixed races and social classes in ways that were unseen in their gatherings, and for it they were considered scandalous.

We are one Body. Race, gender and social status don't matter in terms of our value in Christ. Our Lord is the Father of all.

10- They believed only Christ was the way to salvation. This was in a time when everyone had a god and could believe something entirely different and it was totally acceptable to be polytheists and pluralistic. Christians dared claim that Jesus was the only way and refused to bend to other gods.

Need I say more? In an age of 'tolerance', everyone is pushing coexistence. It doesn't matter what you believe. The God of the Bible is the same as any other god. Jesus is just a way, a truth and a life. Come as you are. There's no need to do things God's Way. Oh, but there is! May we always have the courage to profess Jesus Christ as the only Way to the Father.