Skip to main content

Christianity and Rules

I received a disconcerting email the other day.  It arrived in my inbox courtesy of Lifeway, the subject declaring, "Christianity is not about Following the Rules!"  It seems they want to make apparent via clickbait their continued descent into liberality, as if changing their name from Berean wasn't enough.  Now, some of you may think that I'm being a little bit harsh.  After all, there's some element of truth to it, right?  Christianity isn't just about following rules, right?  Wasn't that the whole point of the Reformation?  Justification is by faith and not by works, right?  Well, here's what bothers me about this email:

1) Christianity is about following rules.  You know why Jesus came to die on the cross?  Because Adam, along with all of his descendants, broke the rules.  Rules are a pretty big part of our religion.  Any version of Christianity that doesn't include rules is a bastardization of the Faith.  There was never anything bad about the Law of God.  Rather, man's inability to keep it moved God to provide an alternative form of righteousness.

We have to get away from this postmodernist, relativistic, and hedonistic concept that rules are bad.  When did rule become a four-letter word?  The modern Church has imbibed this idea that rules and sincerity of faith are somehow contradictory and cannot coexist, but that is not at all what the Bible teaches.  Instead, the Bible tells us that obedience to the objective commands of God gives expression to our love for Him and offers evidence of the work of God in our hearts.

Not only do God's rules provide the opportunity to prove the genuineness of our confession of faith and, therefore, personal assurance of our salvation, but they also keep us safe.  "Moreover, by them your servant is warned," declares David, "in keeping them there is great reward."  His son, Solomon, reflects this attitude when he says of wisdom, "Do not forsake her, and she will keep you; love her, and she will guard you."

Don't misunderstand my meaning here--Christianity is not all about rules.  We do not save ourselves by keeping the rules, but are saved by grace through faith apart from any merit that can be attributed to our works.  Rules, however, those objective moral commands given by God in His Word, guide our lives and guard our hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit.

2) Christianity is not about compromise.  While Christianity is not exclusively about rules, it is also not about compromise.  Making concise moral judgments regarding social issues is beginning to be construed as the unforgivable sin.  The principled man seems to be respected more by the world, which can at least appreciate his commitment to his faith, than by liberal Christianity.  Why, I ask, are we so eager to compromise in the Church today?  Why do we want the world to think we're "woke" and "tolerant"?  Why do we value the world's opinion more than God's?

The Bible is pretty clear that we have to choose between the love of God and the love of the world.  1 John 2:15 says unequivocally, "Do not love the world or the things in the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."  Additionally, Paul reminds Timothy that "all who desire to live a Godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted."  The Apostles, much like our Savior, expected that there would be friction between the world and Christians living their faith out faithfully.  Accordingly, they frowned upon attempts to render oneself palatable to the world at the expense of faithfulness to God's will.  God does not think compromising your principles is cool.  God does call us to have grace with each other and with nonbelievers, but He does not call us to pander to the world, not even as a means of evangelism.

Maybe I am overreacting.  Maybe I'm reading something into this email that isn't there.  I doubt it.  Seemingly-innocuous things like "hip" church names and overly-seeker friendly attitudes are small symptoms of a deadly disease that is infecting the Church.  When we compromise the truth to seem more affable to those who hate God, we lose our identity.  If your Christianity doesn't affect how you live your life, it doesn't deserve to go by that name.
 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...