More responses to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, Teaching Authority and Living Magisterium.

Definition of "magisterium" from yesterday’s post:

The magisterium is the self-assigned and self-acknowledged “teaching authority” of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a reference to whatever authority gets to decide what is true teaching. For Protestants, then, the magisterium is the Bible, though it’s not a very successful teaching authority because Protestants feel free to interpret it any way they want, even if the interpretations are ridiculous and embarrassing. For Roman Catholics, taken to its logical conclusion, the magisterium is the pope or a dogmatic council.

A good portion of that article is an attack on the Protestant’s rejection of the Roman Catholic magisterium. Some of it is good; some bad. It’s the arguments against the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura that I think we need to pay attention to and consider. History establishes that returning to Roman Catholicism is worse than the present situation, but can we not improve on the present situation?

In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas … The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma.

We can’t deny that each man interpreting the Bible, the Protestant "magisterium," for himself has led to endless disputes and to doctrinal anarchy.

Protestants have denied all dogma, however. They have simply extended the right to dictate dogma to thousands of competing denominations.

Hence the necessity of a competent authority to solve controversies and interpret the Bible.

The Protestants have either given this authority to their denominations, to some chosen teacher, or to themselves.

The question is, what’s the alternative? As we saw in yesterday’s post, and is amply explained by John Calvin in his letter to Cardinal Sadolet, Protestants found it impossible to leave that authority in the hands of the unspeakably corrupt 16th century Roman Catholic Church. Anything was better than that, including "endless disputes" and "doctrinal anarchy."

[The Roman Catholic] position was amply justified when the Protestants began compromising themselves with the civil power, rejecting the doctrinal authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium only to fall under that of princes.

Wow. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. This doesn’t even have much to do with today’s post, but it was so hypocritical as to be shocking. I don’t even know how to respond! I had to include it while I was quoting.

Moreover it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Bible, but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory.

This is all true, but what they’re forgetting here is that the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t preserved any of the apostles’ oral teaching! Or if they have, it’s so mixed up in the midst of invented nonsense that it can’t be found. Things like bowing to statues, Mary being the queen of heaven (see yesterday’s post for the dogmatic pronouncement of the RCC that this is so), the worship of the bread of the Lord’s Supper rather than the true oral teaching of the real presence, and the creation of an ecclesiastical organization with powers so far beyond any thing apostolic that they can rightly be described as bizarre, superstitious, and despotic.

Having stated that I don’t believe the RCC has any oral apostolic teaching to pass on to us, the question remains as to whether we need it and where we would find it if we did.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has rightly pointed out the confusion and disputes in Protestant Churches. This blog is often devoted to pointing out how badly Protestant Churches are misinterpreting Scripture; so badly, in fact, that most can be accused of not believing it at all, preferring their tradition even when Scripture clearly refutes it.

I think we have to do something, and finding the oral teaching of the apostles to the churches they formed seems like an excellent solution if that oral teaching can be found.

Many people agree with me, which is why there is such a revival of reading the early Christian writings among Protestants today.

The problem is, listening to those writings and to their teachings would rip apart the entire fabric of Protestant Christianity (just as it would rip apart the entire fabric of Roman Catholic Christianity).

To me, the primary problematic issue is that the oral teaching of the apostles highlights the clearly Biblical teaching that the church is supposed to consist of committed Christians who know each other intimately. Such a church can cleanse itself of leaven, as commanded in 1 Cor. 5, by putting out not only the adulterers and immoral, but even the greedy.

The problem is, if we did that, we’d lose at least half our Protestant members and probably more like 80 to 90% of them, thus depriving most pastors and church staff of a job.

If course if the 10% to 20% left, became part of one another’s lives, and formed Biblical churches, then the pastors and church staff could keep their jobs by either evangelizing or tickling the ears of the 80 to 90% that are left.

That sounds shocking, but at this point millions of people agree with me. George Barna, in his book Revolution, argues that up to 20 million Christians have left organized churches to seek the very sort of fellowship I’m talking about.

The bad news is that even most of those don’t really want God intervening in their personal lives, and working out unity by the power of the Holy Spirit is an undertaking that requires immense self-denial that most people are not willing to give. (Think of it like marriage. It sounds great when you’re courting, but give it some time, and those that are not willing to make significant sacrifices will fail.)

Enough for today. More tomorrow.

You may or may not have noticed, but modern translations differ significantly from the King James Version at Romans 8:1. Modern translations, like the NASB and the NIV, say that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. The KJV, however, adds the clarifying sentence, "who do not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

I’ve heard some Christians complain that the new versions take responsibility away from us. Like the false teachers mentioned in Jude, they turn grace into a license for sin (Jude 4), by removing the requirement to walk in the Spirit.

I don’t agree.

Don’t get me wrong. Paul makes it very clear that there is condemnation for those who claim to be in Christ Jesus but who do not walk after the Spirit. "If we live according to the flesh," he says just eleven verses later, "we will die."

Whether you believe that death is only physical (as ridiculous as that interpretation is) or whether you believe it is spiritual, Romans 8:12 proclaims judgment on those who walk after the flesh rather than after the Spirit. Galatians 6:7-9 does the same, saying that those who sow to the flesh will reap corruption from the flesh.

In both cases, our walking after the flesh is not simply forgiven or covered in the blood of Christ. Those who walk after the flesh are not among those blessed ones "to whom the Lord will not impute sin."

But Paul does not need to point that out in Romans 8:1. He already points it out in Romans 8:2!

Sometimes it’s good to make sure we understand one verse because it clarifies a whole lot of others.

Romans 8:2 says, "The law of the Spirit of life has set us free from the law of sin and death."

Somehow, most of us (including me for many years) read that comment about the law of sin and death, and we have some general, hazy idea of "the law of sin and death" that we never really think through. We just sort of think, "Yeah, yeah; Jesus died for us." We never get around to really ruminating on the Word of God and becoming clean by doing so.

The law of sin and death is the law that Paul has just spent an entire chapter explaining. There were no chapter breaks in Paul’s original letter to the Romans. He’s still talking about what he described in Romans 7. Sin lives in us, compels us to disobedience, and then disobedience to the law of God slays us.

The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, Paul tells us, has delivered us from Romans 7.

Romans 8:1 doesn’t need the clarifying statement “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Romans 8:2 is that clarifying statement.

Paul even ties Romans 8:2 to Romans 8:1 with the Greek word gar, which basically means "because." There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has delivered them from the law of sin and death.

What is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus? Paul goes on to explain that. Romans 8:3 also begins with gar. It explains Romans 8:2. The Law of Moses couldn’t deliver us from our bondage to sin, Romans 8:3 tells us, but God could and did. He did that by sending his own Son in the likeness of our sinful flesh, and as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.

Romans 8:4 then has the clarifying statement that is not needed in Romans 8:1. "The righteous requirement of the Law is fulfilled in those of us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

In modern Christianity, it is common for a "Christian" who has been rebuked to say something to the effect of, "Don’t judge; we’re under grace."

That kind of statement is based on a very wrong understanding of grace. The very reason that we can admonish one another is because we’re under grace. "Sin will not have power over you because you are not under law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14).

There are four main verses I like to use to define grace properly. You just saw one of them. Grace is the power from God that causes sin to lose its power over us. Here are the others:

Similar to Rom. 6:14, the following passage tells us that grace delivers us from sin:

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, godly, and righteously in this present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us so that he might purify for himself his own special people, zealous for good works. (Tit. 2:11-14)

This one talks about the fact that grace helps us in time of need:

Let us come boldly to the throne of grace so that we may find mercy and grace to help in time of need. (Heb. 4:16)

And finally, Peter tells us that grace is the power behind our spiritual gifts and services:

As each one has received a gift, serve it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracle of God. If anyone serves, let it be from the ability which God provides, so that God may be glorified in all things through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion forever and ever. (1 Pet. 4:10-11)

In today’s world, we like to confuse grace with mercy. We call grace God’s unmerited favor, which may not be a bad definition if we understand favor correctly. Grace is power, and if you have grace, it will teach you to live godly, break sin’s power over you, and make you an able servant of the gifts God has given you. In fact, whatever the need, if you come boldly to the throne of God, you can find mercy from God, and you can also find grace, which will help with anything you might have need of.

It gives a little different picture of the fact that we are saved by grace. God has kindly given us access to grace through faith (Rom. 5:2), and we stand in that power by faith. That is why Paul tell us that …

By grace are you saved through faith … (Eph. 2:8)

Freely, apart from works, with all our past forgiven, we can enter into grace through faith. When we do, just as Titus 2:11-14 tells us above, we become "his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God has prepared in advance for us to do" (Eph. 2:10).

We are in desperate need of the grace of God, but it is not because we need God to overlook sin which he has never promised to overlook. If we practice the works of the flesh, we will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21). If we live according to the flesh, we will die (Rom. 8:12), but we will never overcome the flesh on our own. We need the righteousness of God, those good works which God has prepared in advance for us to do, which we will only be able to do as we "by the Spirit, put to death the deeds of the body" (Rom. 8:13).

I believe that God is far more merciful than we give him credit for. Day after day, as we repent and are taught and empowered by grace, we will find his mercies new every morning. But God is not mocked. It is only as we walk in the light that we will find fellowship with one another and experience the ongoing cleansing of the blood of Jesus (1 Jn. 1:7).

I would love to completely deconstruct some of the myths that have made their way into evangelical tradition, then become unquestionable, but which have no Scriptural or historical support. Then afterwards, I would love to retell the story of Christianity the way the early churches said they received it from the apostles.

We would be so blessed; it would honor God, and the Scriptures would fall into place, all saying one thing, rather than our beating each other over the head with competing verses.

But those traditions are so ingrained, it’s hard to do.

As an example, all early Christians knew about Christ’s "new law" (Heb. 7:12), which was not a new law, but the fullness of the old Law of Moses that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5:17. That teaching answers all the fuss about the Sabbath, the ten commandments, why Paul says the Law came to an end (Rom. 10:4), yet appealed to the law (1 Cor. 9:8). Their teaching is clear, and it pulls the Old and New Testaments together in a way we can all understand.

Amazingly, despite the fact that at one time all Christians knew the teaching, no one does now. It’s astounding. You can read the teaching at Christian-history.org.

I have no idea how to do such a reconstruction. Who’s going to believe me?

So, let’s keep picking away at it.

Today, I want to talk one more time about the role of sacrifices.

Yesterday, I went to a National Bible Bee contest. It was a Scripture memory contest for kids with some large cash prizes. The kids were impressive. It seemed like they had the entire Bible memorized.

Anyway, one of the passages was Hosea 6:1-3. This is typing, not talking, so I’ll just quote part of the passage, though the rest is amazing and worth reading, too:

Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. … So let us know, let us press on to know the LORD. (vv. 1,3, NASB)

I’ve been somewhat immersed in the writings of second-century Christianity for about twenty years now. When I read an Old Testament passage about returning to the Lord, I know what it’s going to talk about. It’s going to talk about repentance, and it’s going to emphasize that Israel will be wasting it’s time if they try to sacrifice their way back to fellowship with God.

This is not a concept most modern Christians have.

Sure enough, by v. 6, God says:

For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. (NASB)

At the start of chapter 7, God tells them that they forget that he remembers all their wickedness (7:2). Towards the end of the chapter, God complains, not that they don’t offer sacrifices, but that "they do not cry out to Me from their heart" (7:14, NASB).

By chapter 8, he specifically mentions their sacrifices, saying:

As for My sacrificial gifts, they sacrifice the flesh and eat it, but the LORD has taken no delight in them. Now He will remember their iniquity and punish them for their sins. (8:13, NASB)

Notice, as I said, that he consistently calls for their behavior to change, their repentance, and he says sacrifices will be a waste of time until they do.

Hosea is an amazingly consistent book, staying on the same subject for chapters, outlining the sins of Israel and Judah before drawing to a conclusion in ch. 14, at the end of the book. By the time Hosea reaches that conclusion, it is surprising what he tells Israel to bring with them when they return to the Lord …

Take words with you and return to LORD. Say to him, "Take away all iniquity and receive us graciously, that we may present the fruit of our lips." (14:2)

One more thing we have forgotten that the early Christians knew is that sacrifices don’t purify the heart. If the heart is wrong, the sacrifice is rejected, and that is consistent throughout Scripture, not just here in Hosea. It is the heart that purifies the sacrifice. That is why King David writes:

For you do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. (Ps. 51:16-17, NASB)

This is as true of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as it is of the sacrifice of animals. Paul tells us, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap" (Gal. 6:7, NASB). He then goes on to say that sowing to the flesh will produce corruption for us, while sowing to the Spirit will produce eternal life.

We are those who have nothing good in us, who rely on Jesus Christ to deliver us from this body of death (Rom. 7:24 w/ 8:3-4). We depend daily on the mercy of God, but we need to know that mercy is poured out on those who confess their sins and repent. Then we can enter boldly into the throne of grace, seeking mercy and grace to help in time of need. God will always forgive the repentant, but if we come boldly into the throne of grace, holding sin in our heart, without crying out for deliverance, we may find ourselves recipients of the mercy of God in a form far different than we expected.

It is possibly to trample the Son of God underfoot, to count the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing, and to insult the Spirit of Grace (Heb. 10:29). The writer of Hebrews tells us that if we do so, there is only a fearful expectation of judgment.

Even such judgment is the kindness of God, for we cannot be allowed to continue to believe that grace is a license to sin. If you care to enter the presence of Almighty God by the blood of Jesus, then take words with you and repent before the Lord. He is well able to cleanse you, but not if you have no care to walk in the Spirit and live pleasing to his will.

Apparently, this post is not Innocence vs. Purity "Revisited." I thought I’d already written a post on innocence vs. purity, but apparently I haven’t. A great oversight on my part!

Today, a man I respect and like posted a very interesting post on Facebook, but it implied that God was not at fault for the defect of sin in us. (Which is an immense defect, see Rom. 7.) Perhaps there is some accuracy to that, but to be honest I have to say I don’t agree. The God who can create the universe and foresee all things could not have been ignorant of what would happen if he created man in the manner he did.

I want to argue that the fall of man was a good thing.

God’s plan was never innocence; it was incorruptible purity, and that required the loss of innocence. He always intended to sum all things up in Christ, to make us the sons of God in a more real way than Adam was, and to wind up with new creations that are incorruptible.

In the other post that I thought I wrote, but didn’t, I wanted to say that we should be the same way with our own children. Protecting their innocence is not the goal, though admittedly that innocence should be guarded for a time. Preparing them to meet temptation so that they will preserve their purity, that is the goal.

I got carried away and wrote a long email to a young man who wrote me. It covers evolution, church history, the apostles, the Word of God, the Scriptures, the Gospel, and what is central to Christianity.

I hate to see it simply languish in my sent folder, so here goes:

All Bible quotes in this post are from the NASB.

You wrote:>>Either you believe everything in the Bible is the inspired Word of God, being completely true, and that it is the standard for which Christians should live their lives, or you don’t.<<

To me you just made two statements, not one. The first, if I'm understanding your meaning correctly, is that the Bible is completely accurate historically and scientifically. That's a bit more narrow of a definition than "completely true."

Is the Bible “Completely True”?

There is no denying that I don’t believe the Bible is completely accurate historically or scientifically. I don’t believe the world is set on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8). I don’t believe that the sky is as hard as a metal mirror (Job 37:18). I believe that the earth moves, even though Psalm 93:1 says it doesn’t.

Of course, everyone–including you, your pastor, and everyone else you know–agrees with me on the three things I just listed. Oh, they have their excuses as to why that’s different than doubting the exact scientific accuracy of Genesis 1, but it all looks the same to me.

Do we really believe that God made plants before there was a sun? Do we really believe that there is a tree that if you eat from it, you’ll have eternal life whether God wants you to have it or not? That’s certainly what the story of the Garden of Eden suggests. God had to ban Adam … No, let’s not call him Adam. His name is Man. The Hebrew word Adam is used over 500 times in the Old Testament, and it is only translated Adam in the first few chapters of Genesis.

So, God had to ban Man and Life (Life was the name of Man’s wife) from the garden because if he didn’t, then Man would eat from the tree of life and live forever; apparently even if God didn’t want him to live forever!

Maybe that was meant to be an accurate description of the very first days of mankind, but I don’t believe that. And everyone I’ve read on the subject of how the Hebrews told stories agrees with me. To the Hebrews, “true” was not a matter of historically accurate. “True” had to do with whether it communicated truth.

I believe that the story of Man and Life not only communicates truth, but it communicates God’s truth. It’s not just a saying or a bit of human wisdom. It’s a message from God.

In that sense, I do believe that the Scriptures are completely true.

Is “scientifically and historically accurate” the correct definition of true? Well, that’s for you to decide, but I believe that is a modern, western definition that doesn’t apply very well to the Hebrew Scriptures. It was certainly not their mindset, according to every Hebrew scholar I’ve read.

Is the Bible our Standard

The other part of your statement was whether the Bible is “the standard for which Christians should live their lives.”

First, let me say that I definitely believe that the Bible is the standard for which Christians should test, though not necessarily live, their lives. If our lives disagree with the Scriptures, then we are in error. With that I completely agree, but the Scriptures teach us that we are to be led by the Spirit, not led by the Scriptures. The Scriptures can provide guidance, but we are to walk in the Spirit.

Today, we think the Bible is the center of the Christian faith.

I’m pretty certain that the apostles thought that Jesus Christ is the center of the Christian faith. I think they believed that the ultimate testimony of Christianity was that the Gospel they received from Jesus was “the power of God to salvation,” and that those who believed the Gospel received a real and powerful justification, becoming new creations.

Paul describes that concerning the Thessalonians:

“You became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. For the Word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything” (1 Thess. 1:7-8).

The Scriptures talk about the Word of God growing three different times in Acts (6:7; 12:24; 19:20). We tend to equate the Scriptures and the Word of God, but the apostles didn’t. They believed the Word of God is either Jesus or the entire message of God, in whatever form it came. One major form is that the Word of God lives in us, planted like a seed. It can grow because as the number of disciples multiply, the Word of God grows.

We can say that the Scriptures are the standard by which we must live our lives, but could the apostles’ churches say that? I’ve read all the writings of the second century church, and I can tell you–along with the agreement of pretty much every Christian scholar you want to check–that the New Testament writings were not gathered together until about a hundred years after Jesus died.

And do you know how they gathered the New Testament writings?

They were not gathering “inspired” writings. They were not gathering “New Testament” writings. They were gathering the writings of apostles and men who accompanied the apostles. They wanted all and any they could find.

It was the apostles who were inspired, not just their writings. (For example, see 2 Thess. 2:15 and verses like 1 Cor. 11:2 and 14:37.) The New Covenant has never been about a book. It has been about God pouring out his Spirit on all flesh, bringing them into the church, and making of them a family that would glorify his name by their love for God, their love for each other, and their disdain for the things of the world.

Boxing up God, the Scriptures, and the Gospel

I’m so sorry, dear reader, that writing like this is so limited. Today we’ve boxed everything up and made everything nice and tidy.

God’s never been that way. He’s always left questions and things we don’t understand. He doesn’t care about our fitting his grand plan into our limited human minds. He cares about our trust and obedience. He wants us to know him, for eternal life is to know him, not to pass a test on his plan of salvation (Jn. 17:3).

The Original Faith

My goal is not to convince you of things, but to let you look at the faith that’s been handed to us. The original faith consisted of a firm trust that God sent Jesus, Jesus sent the apostles, and the apostles raised up churches to preserve the truth. Those churches all had a basic “rule of faith” to keep them on the straight and narrow. The Apostles Creed is a 4th century “rule of faith.”

When you read the writings of the 2nd century church, it’s such a glorious thing to see the purity of original Christianity. They held firm to the foundation that “The Lord knows those who are his, and let those who name the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Tim. 2:19). They demanded that Christians accept the basic truths, the sort of things outlined in the Nicene Creed, but after that, “sound doctrine” was much more like what is described in Titus 2 than the sort of things we argue about today.

They honored those who lived holy lives. In fact, one early Christian said, “We don’t speak great things; we live them.”

When they defended Christianity, they spoke of the divinity of Christ’s teachings and how the Spirit of God empowered them to be delivered from greed and lust and to live lives of good conscience. Further, they stood gallantly during persecution, arguing that the bravery of the martyrs was proof of the power of the Spirit of God in the lives of Christians.

Misusing the Scriptures

I love the Scriptures. I hope, as you can see, that I study them thoroughly. I pattern my life after them, and I quote them in defense of all I say. If what I say can’t be found in the Scriptures, then what I say can be rightly rejected.

But we’ve done something awful with the Scriptures in the modern era. As I read today in a George MacDonald book, there are too many people who are “more desirous of understanding what they are supposed to understand than of doing what they are supposed to do.”

We argue and fight over doubtful matters. We make our determinations of what is true based on our intellectual interpretations of Scripture, when in fact Jesus (in Scripture) taught us to judge our teachers by their fruit and not by their confident interpretations (Matt. 7).

The Doctrine According to Godliness

We need to relearn the “doctrine according to godliness” as mentioned by Paul in 1 Tim. 6:3. Because our doctrine is according to intellect and argument, rather than according to godliness, we are what Paul describes in 1 Tim. 6:4-5:

He has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved minds and deprived of the truth.

Let us set ourselves to obeying Jesus Christ and honoring him by our lives.

Evolution and Doubtful Disputes

I have a web site on evolution. That is not because I think that Christians need to take a position on evolution, nor because I want anyone at all to agree it’s true. What I want is that men who have boxed up the Word of God and wrapped a book cover around him do not splinter the church of God into fighting factions over doubtful subjects.

The mark of a Christian is not that he agrees that Genesis one is literal … nor that it’s not literal. The mark of a Christian is that by the power of the Spirit of God he obeys Jesus Christ, living a life marked by the love of God.

We have enough work achieving that goal, but modern Christians have forgotten that it is a goal. They have become confused into thinking that Christianity is a mere understanding of and assent to the atonement.

Salvation is not a plan; it’s a Man, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think most of us have seen and probably spent time considering the following verse.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the basic principles of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

We—especially those of us who are Protestants—know to avoid the traditions of men.

Well, that little aside is a bump in the road that could throw us way off my topic for today!

Well, anyway, we all know that verse tells us not to deviate from Christ because of philosophy, traditions of men, and whatever else seems like a good idea.

But why?

Why did Paul tell us not to deviate for the sake of all these relatively important things, things that most religions lean heavily upon? The "basic principles of the world" are a reference to common sense. They are the things we all know must be true. Paul’s example in this chapter is that we are certain that if we deny ourselves—if we "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle"—then of course we’re doing what God wants.

No, Paul says. Don’t turn away from Christ even for such seemingly obvious things.

Why?

Here’s the next two verses:

For in [Christ] all the fullness of divinity dwells physically, and you are complete in him.

I have no way of knowing if that’s a wow moment for you, but it sure was for me today.

Why are we avoiding the traditions of men and all those things that seem like good ideas to everyone, the "basic principles of the world"?

Because all the fullness of divinity lives in Jesus Christ physically, and because we are complete in him, it would be stupid to turn to anything else. Anything else is not only less, but immeasurably less. Divinity is infinite. The fullness of divinity is in Jesus, and we are complete in him.

Why would we not, then, live by the Spirit he has place inside of us rather than by all our other good ideas?

"As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God" (Romans 8:14).

"You search the Scriptures because you think you have life in them, but these are they which testify of me [Jesus]. Yet you refuse to come to me so that you might have life!" (John 5:39-40).

I sent an email today talking about the basics of walking with Christ and of dealing with weakness. I thought it was worth sharing with you.

Any of you that are mature in Christ, no matter what your background, will recognize the following as truth. You will also recognize that we all have to be reminded of this regularly, preferably every few days so we don’t lose sight of what we’re doing and begin walking in the flesh.

So here’s the email:

I’m always harping on the need to have a real commitment to Jesus. Asking Jesus into your heart and believing that he died for your sins are not enough. You have to be a believer in Jesus, which means you listen to what he says, not just a believer in the fact that he died for our sins.

Today, though, I want to talk about not going overboard.

By overboard, I don’t mean that you are zealous for Christ, have a one-track mind, don’t want to talk about anything but Jesus, and are ready to race into the jungles of Africa and give your life for the Gospel. That’s not overboard. That’s commendable zeal.

By overboard, I mean that you sneer at people who tell you that they don’t feel called to the jungles of Africa and that they’d just like to raise their children as good, godly people who will contribute to the world around them.

We, and of course I’m including myself here, can complain about easy believism. There is definitely a false Gospel being preached in America, and it is being preached often, not rarely.

But the word “easy” is not a bad word:

Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Jesus, Matthew 11:30, ESV)

In what way is Jesus’ yoke easy?

I’ve heard that explained a lot of ways. My favorite, I think, is that the meaning is that the yoke—a device put upon oxen to help them pull a plow—is perfectly fitted for us. It’s not a one-size-fits-all that rubs our skin and give us blisters. It is comfortably made for each of us.

So some of us are called to trek the jungles of Africa. I’ve got friends packed into a 3-bedroom house in Kenya right now, living together with an African pastor for a couple months so that they can build the church and teach them to love one another and esteem each other equally.

Some of us are called to hospital rooms for chemotherapy like I’ve been going through for 4 weeks.

Others are called to go to work and live their life with kindness, friendliness, and the joy that comes from being in the presence of God.

Aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. (1 Thess. 4:11-12)

You will search the letters to the churches in vain for a similar command that says, “Aspire to be an excellent witness at work, finding opportunities to inject Gospel sayings into the lives of others.”

I love the fact that indigenous missionaries are traveling all over India, preaching the Gospel in villages and towns where the name of Jesus has never been heard.

In the USA, however, the name of Jesus has been defamed by idiots and charlatans who chant his name and throw out Scriptures to extort money from people or to get brownie points from God for their zealous evangelism while they are years away from having any real Christian stability in their lives.

It’s time for American Christians to shut up and live their faith.

There are exceptions. Thank God for some of these wonderful people who are in impoverished areas, helping people, and talking about Jesus while they’re doing it. Thank God for ministries like Teen Challenge.

Those ministries will be many times more effective if the rest of us, who are not doing those ministries, would follow the advice of 1 Thess. 4 and be quiet, keep our affairs in order, and give no opportunity for the Gospel to be maligned.

Okay, so I still sound like I’m ranting and raving, chewing people out.

Sorry.

My point is that all of us need to walk with Jesus. We need to be sold out for the Gospel, loving God, and walking by the Spirit.

But that doesn’t mean we’re called to evangelize the whole world. Many, probably most, Christians are simply called to enjoy fellowship with God and be an example by their steadfast, solid, and loving lives, rejecting worldly gain for the simple but huge joy of serving and loving others and giving thanks to God in all things.

That’s the right kind of easy believism.

Live in the grace you’ve been given. Go as far as God has called you. Know where God has called you. Be a good steward of his grace (1 Pet. 4:10-11), but don’t serve him out of a pressured guilt.

It’s okay for us, together, to shine a light that cannot be hidden simply because by our nature—which we have received from Christ when we were born again—we are zealous for good.

And it’s not just okay, but correct, to call that holiness.

Who am I to be fabulous?

Who am I not to be?

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. … And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. (Marianne Williamson, A Return to Love.)

I have chosen not to be a bank robber. I have chosen not to vandalize my neighbor’s property. I have chosen not to shoplift.

We don’t commend such choices. We punish and look down upon those who don’t make them. Whether Christian or not, theist or not, virtually every human alive agrees that each of us is obligated to avoid that type of behavior.

Are we not equally obligated to do what is good?

Are we not equally obligated not to waste the life we have been given?

Today, I was told by a nurse that patients like me are the minority. Most do not have a positive outlook. Most do not look for the best in their situation.

As she was telling me this, she said, “Of course, no one reacts positively when you first find out such devastating news.”

I did.

I didn’t tell her that. It seemed not very humble to say it. Later, though, I got to thinking about the quote that I started this blog with.

As we let our light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.

We all have our strengths; we all have our weaknesses.

We don’t all use our strengths, and we don’t all work on our weaknesses. Some of us just give in. We float through life.

Are we any less obligated to avoid that attitude than to avoid being a thief?

It was not an accident or a quirk of my nature that allowed me to receive the news of my leukemia with joy from the moment I received it.

I practiced receiving such news for years.

I asked myself whether I was really a Christian. I asked myself whether I really believed what the Bible says. In fact, I found out that I believe what Jesus said. I believe what Moses said. I believe what the apostles said, and I want to follow Abraham’s example. I believe in the inspiration of the Bible, but I really don’t believe that the earth was made in 7 days. I also believe that when serious science competes with literal Bible interpretation, science always wins, and the unyielding literal interpreters of the Bible always end up, well, looking ignorant and foolish.

So I admitted who I am on evolution. The fact is, I trust scientists more than I do the fundamentalists because scientists have better fruit, are more honest, and slander people less.

But when it comes to believing the Gospel, I believe it. I believe that all things work together for good to those who love God and who are the called according to his purpose.

Therefore, for decades, as angry as I might get about being fined $600 when I was broke for a car accident that a president of a bank caused, then lied about and sued me over, I would acknowledge that it wasn’t the bank president who did that to me. It was God. And it was for my good.

For decades, I made up my mind to first question my own judgment about myself rather than the judgment of a person who accused or admonished me.

For decades, I practiced what I believed.

By that, I don’t mean that I did everything I believed. I practiced. I worked at it. I trained, and I got better.

Then one day, God said, “You’ve come far, Grasshopper. You are now ready for a real test.”

And so far, I’ve passed.

We all have different strengths.

What are yours? And what are you doing with them?

Or are you just lucky there’s no laws against coasting through life, being a lazy, evil steward of the gift of life that God gave you?