Posted by Mike O on: 01.18.2007 /
In the Matthew 15:1-9, we find a story of Jesus engaging the religious leaders of the day (bolding added):
Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God … because of your tradition?For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God” - then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
What I see here is the difference between real “Christ followers,” and “Christians” in the religious sense of the word. I believe that the biggest obstacle that Christians have put up between ourselves and the rest of the world is summed up in the last line of this passage … “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
Is it these “doctrines of men” that divide us, or is it really the teachings of Christ? Somehow, I think the issues people have with Christians aren’t HIS fault … they’re mine. So on behalf of Christ followers everywhere, I appologize for the “commandments of men” that I have held up as “the doctrines of God.”
My prayer is that Christians everywhere would see what we’ve done and put away our “doctrines of men” and just let it be the “commandments of God” that separate us. If we could get to that point, would things be any different?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: NCxian
1 01/18/07 3:29 PM | Comment Link |Yes, I think things would be different. However, I don’t see any likelihood of our knowing with certainty what are the commandments of God. And thus, how would we know whether our doctrines are of men or of God?
What would you say the commandments of God are?
Comment by: Ernie
2 01/18/07 6:04 PM | Comment Link |The first four words of Bible are
“In the beginning God”
Those who don’t accept that will NOT accept anything else that relates to God’s commandments
Comment by: NCxian
3 01/18/07 6:27 PM | Comment Link |So, let’s take it from there (since I believe that in the beginning was God). What are God’s commandments?
Comment by: Mike O
4 01/18/07 7:51 PM | Comment Link |Ernie said,
That’s why I worded the last paragraph, “and just let it be the “commandments of God” that separate us.” There will never be total agreement because there are basic things we just won’t agree on. But if we could get it to that level, wouldn’t that somehow be better, though?
NCxian said,
Yeah, I had written (and then took out) a whole section on how I’m probably the last person in the world who can tell the difference between “commandments of God” and “doctrines of men” becuase I’ve been in it my whole life. I guess to me, if you can find it IN THE BIBLE, then it counts. Or at least you can make a case for it.
Comment by: Karen
5 01/18/07 9:04 PM | Comment Link |The pastor at the last church I attended was really attuned to this. He made a big distinction about what things “had to be” due to tradition, church doctrine, etc. versus the essentials that he believed came from god (basic fundamentalist doctrine).
His idea was that many of the things that divided Christians - and put off outsiders - were of the human persuasion and thus non-essential. So, we started calling the church lobby a “lobby” instead of a “narthex” (Go figure!) People who wanted to be baptised could be dunked in the baptismal font, sprinkled or whatever. Kids could be bapitzed at birth or dedicated. We had kneelers installed for those who wanted to kneel in prayer (despite being Protestants!) in the sanctuary (excuse me, “worship center”) ;-).
These were all accommodations he made on the small details that often lead to big church fights. He didn’t want to get into those kinds of fights, plus he wanted to make everything as accessible as possible to people from all kinds of backgrounds. I really appreciated that.
Comment by: Mike O
6 01/19/07 3:14 AM | Comment Link |Karen, I think that’s really cool!
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7 01/19/07 1:52 PM | Comment Link |Karen, it’s neat to hear how your pastor was intentional about giving people as much choice as was possible within his belief system.
Mike, I like your approach - of apologizing and in effect saying “What could we do better?”
I think having that attitude usually does lead to better relationships even in situations like this where some significant differences in viewpoint cannot be eliminated (as Ernie said).
Comment by: seeker
8 01/19/07 6:22 PM | Comment Link |A more helpful way to categorize these is probably not just “god’s commands v. man’s doctrines” but rather, primary vs. secondary doctrines, as in the saying
Legalists tend to elevate secondary, non-essential doctrines (like whose name you baptize in, for instance), to primary, and separate based on those things. It’s a pity.
Comment by: MTran
9 01/20/07 5:11 AM | Comment Link |Mike O.,
If you haven’t already read it, you might get a lot out of a book written by Rabbi Professor Richard Elliott Friedman: Who Wrote The Bible?
Friedman puts a great deal of effort into untangling the various contributors to the Pentateuch (and the next 5 books).
Along the way, he discusses rather fully the ancient political and religious disputes between the priests of Israel and those of Judah and how their competing interpretations of history and faith are reflected in the old testament. The questions about the commands of god vs “traditions” are handled very astutely in Freidman’s book. IMHO
Seems as if those questions have been around for a long time!
Comment by: Eliza
10 01/20/07 5:28 PM | Comment Link |Mike O, this section from Matthew came up in the Lutheran ARE course I’m taking. I found it interesting that this quote Jesus gives from Isaiah 29 in Matthew 15:8-9 is from the Septaguint; the line “in vain they worship me” is not there in the Hebrew. As translated in my ESV Bible, it reads:
It seems to me that this leaves a different sense here (The Lord will do wonder upon wonder with these people…) than in the Septaguint that Jesus quotes (In vain do they worship…), but when I asked the pastor about the difference, he thought it was minor. (Anyone here have any thoughts on that?)
Mike O, you said:
I echo NCxian’s question, how can these be distinguished? You said if you can find it in the Bible, then it counts (counts as God’s commandments, is that right?).
Does that mean: (1) love thy God and (2) love thy neighbor, or do you see additional commandments by God? (Were the many other laws and commandments in the Bible remanded in the NT?)
Comment by: Mike O
11 01/23/07 4:41 AM | Comment Link |Seeker said,
Yes, that’s it exactly!
Eliza said,
I have one off the top of my head … Jesus often used the Old testament as a springboard into a New Testament teaching. Thou shalt not kill became “If you call someone a fool, you’re guilty of murder.” “Thou shalt not commit adultery” became “Whoever looks upon a woman lustfully is guilty of adultery.” Could this be the same thing I wonder? Again, I like the quote from seeker.
Eliza said,
IMO, it’s pretty clear that Jesus’ intent was “Focus on these two, and the others will fall into place.” At least that’s my take on it.
I just finished reading romans, and Biblically speaking, there are two laws at work … the law of the flesh (”THE LAW”), and the law of the Spirit (”GRACE”). These war against each other, and the way I see it, if you want to be made rightous by good works (”THE LAW”), it’s impossible. Nobody is good enough and Jesus made salvation by good works even more difficult than the old testament law. But if you want to be made righteous by grace, all the details of the law as a measuring stick go away. Just love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Galatians 5:16-25 says,
And in Romans 7:21-23, Paul sums up this conflict nicely,
As long as we live in these mortal bodies, we will fight against the natural desires of the flesh. But because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we are rescued.
So coming around to the original question, there are two greater commandments … love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do these two, and the others will fall into place. In Matthew 22:34-40, Jesus says,
Comment by: Mike O
12 01/23/07 5:23 AM | Comment Link |Eliza and seeker, thanks for your posts. I think these two points are really what I was getting at with my original post …
and
I think these two commandments are “the essentials” and everything else is “the non-essentials.” So with these in mind, I will ask again my original question:
How could that answer not be “yes?”
Comment by: Mike O
13 01/23/07 7:25 AM | Comment Link |Seeker, I can’t get that quote out of my head … it’s stuck like a sliver in my brain!
I looked it up, and it’s by John Wesley.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
14 01/23/07 7:26 AM | Comment Link |Mike, the problem I run into is the big difference between Christians in how they interpret “Love thy neighbor”. To some Christians, “Love thy neighbor” means such things as opposing gay marriage and picketing abortion clinics. Other Christians feel very differently.
Comment by: NCxian
15 01/23/07 7:40 AM | Comment Link |Mike:
I completely agree with you that it would be a better place if all Christians, and groups of Christians, would make decisions with Love God/Love Your Neighbor as the primary criteria. So I don’t want my questions to be construed to be discouraging that at all.
I think it is interesting, though, to imagine how that might work itself out. Here are a couple of examples we can think about.
My in-laws are very God-loving, neighbor-loving people. Even though they are of modest means, they have always tithed, and on top of that, given generously of their money and time and effort and heart to the hungry, sick, strangers, etc. More literally, I am sure that everyone in their cul-de-sac would say they are the kindest, most thoughtful neighbors they have ever had.
A couple of years ago, their church proposed to start an informal service, where people could come “as they are”. My in-laws were horrified by this. In their minds, loving God includes coming before Him each and every Sunday morning with the best that you have. They would certainly understand that a person without nice clothes would come less well dressed, but it should always be your best. That is loving God. And in addition, they might say that by condoning such a practice, the church and the leaders of that service would be condoning behavior that would lead weaker brothers and sisters to misunderstand the reverence and humility required to be in right relation to God. Conducting such a service would not be a loving behavior toward those people, because we want to help our neighbors be in right relation to God.
Here is a second example. I believe that women and men should be encouraged to pursue whatever path they feel God is leading them to, even if it includes being the pastor of a church. I believe honoring a person’s calling, no matter what their gender, is loving God and loving that person. I believe that telling women that their particular giftedness is not welcome is not only harmful to them, but harmful to the people they would have blessed had they been allowed to do what God called them to do. I believe telling a woman that you know better than she does what God has called her to do is a serious violation of the love God/love your neighbor rule. And I believe that holding such a position is harmful to girls being brought up in that tradition. And boys, now that I think about it.
Others would say that certain roles are designated for men. “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.” Therefore, it is loving God to honor his commandment in this regard, even if it doesn’t seem quite right, because we are by nature limited and God is not. He can see the ramifications of not following this rule even if we cannot. It is loving our neighbors, even our female pastor-types, to not support their breaking God’s clearly established rule. And so on.
Now, how do we apply the love God/love your neighbor rule in these circumstance? Or any circumstances where sincere Christians disagree? Every person in both of these examples believes that loving God and loving one’s neighbors is the highest priority.
I am thinking that, since it is very difficult to decide what is essential and what is not, what is God/neighbor loving and what is not, the critical piece of this slogan is the last line–”In all things, charity”. I interpret this to mean that we should try to think the best of each other, try to see the other person’s point of view as their sincere effort to do what is God- and neighbor-loving, and allow each other room to disagree without inflicting damage on each other. If we could all do that, I think we would really see a difference in the world.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
16 01/23/07 10:14 AM | Comment Link |NCxian wrote:
I agree.
Comment by: Mike O
17 01/23/07 10:36 AM | Comment Link |Those are good questions, NCxian, and I guess I agree that there’s room for disgreement. But if Christians of all ilks could get to the point where we can walk away in friendly disagreement, I don’t see an issue. It’s a heart thing, not an action thing.
Take your inlaws for example. There’s nothing inherently wrong with their view. So I would say, let them ahve it and let them wear their best and let them attend a church that sees it that way. But my hope would be that they could accept that others don’t see it that way, and there’s other chruches for them. Live and let live.
I think agreement is overrated sometimes.
I can’t remember his name right now, but do you remember the first gay Episcopalian bishop? When he was accepted (or just before), he made a statement to the effect “I would rather have heresy than disharmony.” That’s not an exact quote, but it does show what I think is an error. Forced agreement for the sake of harmony is a mistake IMO. I would much rather have what we have here … a group of people who can disagree and walk away friends and equals.
Also, take the women in ministry thing … for the people who feel strongly one way or the other, let them. Let them associate with likeminded people. Better to stand by your convictions than to manufacture some pretend harmony.
I guess it comes down to how you respond to people you disagree with. Love God. Love People. Overlook the other guy’s methods.