Slaves of Christ?

So I'm heavily engaged in the 'Christians and alcohol' debate and a good brother throws in the analogy of slavery - the analogy being that, just because God doesn't specifically address something as wrong, we can and should still glean principles from Scripture which point to it's wrongness. In theory I agree with such premise, but I'm still working through my thoughts regarding a hard and fast Biblical condemnation of slavery - but that's for another blog. It did, however, serve to start the 'cogs' of my brain. Didn't Paul refer to Christians as slaves? I quote vs. 16 and 17 from Romans Ch. 6 as follows: "Do you not know that, to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, his slaves you are whom you obey, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness. But thanks be to God that, though you were slaves of sin, you have obeyed from the heart that form of teaching into which you were delivered. And having been freed from sin, you were enslaved to righteousness." So I got to thinking, what are some of the 'characteristics' of being a slave? I have come up with the following: (1) slaves do not 'own' themselves; they are owned by someone else. Does that work in my 'Christian slave' analogy? I think so. Didn't Paul say, "...you are not your own? You have been bought with a price...." (I Cor. 6:19b & 20a). So, then, as a Christian, I have no personal rights, right? If, in fact, I am a slave of Christ evidenced by the fact that I've been 'bought with a price', then I belong to Christ - not myself. Okay - not too difficult to understand 'theoretically', but what about the practical implications? How should that affect my everyday life? Well, first and foremost, I think it means a relinquishment of my 'rights'. I can't say, "This is how 'I' want to worship" or, "'I' want this or that". My first consideration MUST be, what is Christ's desire for me? Isn't that the attitude expected of slaves? What does my master desire? I'm personally not a big fann of the WWJD bracelets, but I think the premise is close. The relevant question is not, "what would Jesus do", but rather, "what would Jesus have me do"? And the answer will ALWAYS be - do that which puts others ahead of yourself. (2) slaves are dependent on their 'masters' for their sustenance. I know we 'say' that we are dependent on God for our needs, but do we really recognize that all that we have is because of the grace of God? James says, "every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above" (Ja.1:17) But, if we are slaves, even the good things given us by God are not ours 'for our own pleasure'; they are ours to use as our 'master' would have us use them. Whether the 'stuff' we have is money, toys, tools, houses, etc. They are not given to us to fulfill our selfish desires, but rather, that we may learn selflessness through the giving away of that which God has given us. (3) slaves expect no 'compensation' for their work. We are so often in need of forgiveness for our arrogance. We confess that all that we are and all that we have comes from God, and yet 'expect' accolades, promotions, recognition, and commendation - not to mention any monetary benefits we think we 'deserve'. As long as our attitude is one of "well, I've done such and such for you God - what are you going to do for me in return?", or "Look what I've done - I 'deserve' this or that", then we fail to have a 'slave' mentality toward Him who 'owns' us. All that we do should be in appreciation for what Christ has done for us - bought us with the ultimate price - with no expection of selfish reward.
So the analogy works pretty good so far, but what about the passages which deal with Christian freedom and Christian liberty? Aren't those somewhat at odds with this notion of being a 'Christian slave'? John 8:32 says, "and you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free." Does this fit in with our 'Christian slave' analogy? Maybe. You see, before salvation, we are told that we are 'slaves of sin' - not only in Rom. 6, but here in John 8 as well - "everyone who commits a sin is a slave of sin" (v. 34). So the freedom that the 'Truth' (or Christ) brings, then, is freedom from slavery to sin. I think Luther called it the 'bondage of the will'. Before salvation, we are slaves to our own fallen nature - with many of the same 'traits' that I've already mentioned. We are dependent on our lusts, we are subject to the desires of our lusts, we are owned by our lusts. But Christ 'set us free'. Okay, free FROM the 'bondage of our will', but free TO what? Free to be a slave to someone else? Well, ....yes. I had - up until I began to 'chew' on this slavery thing, always contended that the freedom 'to' was the freedom of choice that a Christian has - as opposed to one who has not been spiritually 'regenerated'. Before regeneration, as the doctrine goes, we will 'always choose wrong' - we don't have the ability to choose righteousness. But after regeneration, we have the 'choice' to choose between righteousness and sin - as testified by Paul in Rom. 6. BUT, the more I 'chew' the slavery cud, the more I'm convinced that while we have 'choice' in an absolute sense, in a practical sense, we really don't. I think maybe that the freedom that Christ was talking about was the 'freedom' to become selfless. Does that make sense? Before knowing the 'Truth', we ALWAYS choose the selfish road. Oh, some of our actions and thoughts may seem altruistic, but 'me, myself, and I' are always at the root of the decision. After the 'Truth' has 'purchased' us, we are given the capacity to 'follow Christ' - i.e. we now have the 'freedom' to do good and righteous things. You see, my paradigm of 'freedom' was skewed. While I don't use my liberty as 'license', I believed that I had the 'freedom' to do such. If, however, I am a slave to Christ, I really don't have that freedom. My master does not approve of choices I make that serve ME. My master desires me to make choices that serve others - and now, becuase I know the 'Truth', I have the 'freedom' to make those choices. So, my friends, I now continue this journey called life with a significant paradigm shift regarding who I am - I am a slave to Christ.

Grace and peace to all,

Post Tinebrae Lux

On Alcohol (the drinking kind)

During my short tenure here in blogosphere I have become painfully aware of an issue that appears to have taken on "life or death" importance since the most recent meeting of the SBC. It's the issue of whether or not the Bible speaks against the Christian's liberty to consume alcoholic beverages. I have been engaged in at least four different blogs where discussion - wait, that's too mild - where heated and often Christ dishonoring assaults have been made from those on both sides of the issue. I must say, however, that it is my experience that those who would promote the Biblical position of moderation (I say Biblical not in the sense of "most accurate", but in the sense of "basing one's position on Scripture) have been, for the most part, the ones who suggest that it is a conviction issue. In other words, it is my experience that (most of) the moderationists (can I call them that?) take the position that if you are convicted (and convinced) that the consumption of alcohol is blessed by God (not the abuse of alcohol), then the only requirement is that you do all to the Glory of God. In like manner, most of the comments I've seen by moderationists have inferred the same attitude toward those who would abstain - i.e. that if that is their conviction, then their only obligation is to be fully convinced and abstain to the Glory of God. Maybe it's a bias of mine (as I would put myself in the moderationist camp), but I truly have seen less judgement from the moderationists than the abstentionists (is that a word?). To be fair, I have witnessed the cry of "legalist" from the moderationists, but I think maybe that cry is in response not to the abstentionists view of alcohol as much as it is their attitude toward the moderationists. It has been my experience that, for whatever reason - and I'm sure there are many - the abstentionists fear that a moderationist view of alcohol will permeate the SBC - if not Christianity itself. In response to that, not only have they developed extensive and elaborate arguments for multiple uses of the word "wine", why Jesus didn't drink real wine, etc., but they have (and I realize this is a generalization - not all abstentionists would do this - possibly not even the majority) made abstention of alcohol into a "Scriptural absolute", thus justifying their condemnation of anyone who would dare consume a glass of "real" wine (strong drink according to most of the posts I've seen). Don't misunderstand me - the Godly exchange of ideas, Scripture interpretations, etc. is both edifying and strengthening. Judgement from those who abstain, however, or disdain from those who do not abstain, is immoral according to Rom. 14. Is there not a point where we who drink in moderation can lift our wine glasses with the glasses of those who abstain (whatever may be in those glasses) in honor of God's love, blessings, sovereignty, and son Jesus Christ? Please do not post dissertations on why you believe the Bible prohibits alcohol - that issue has already been addressed ad-nauseum on several other blogs. This post is not about defending the consumption of alcohol - it is about the judgemental approach some abstentionists take toward moderationists and - to be fair - the despising approach some moderationists take toward abstentionists.

Post Tinebrae Lux

Looking Back

Well, I'm almost through my first week in blogosphere. My knowledge of things blog has increased exponentially. As you can probably glean from my writings, the blogs most visited are those which deal with things of a theological or Biblical nature. Some of the things I've learned this week include: (1) not all professing Christians behave like Christ (ok, I didn't just learn that, but it has certainly been reinforced over the past few days), (2) there are some REALLY knowledgeable bloggers out there, (3) blogging provides an avenue for spirited people like myself to discuss, disagree, and (hopefully) become edified through exchange with others with whom I'd otherwise have no access to, and (4) if I'm not careful, this can become an addiction. :) With respect to the professing Christians who do not behave like Christ, I must admit that, although I expected that of some, I am intrigued that much of the animosity I've experienced has come from those who shepherd churches. Doctrine without love is a very dangerous position. With respect to the wealth of knowledge in blogosphere, it is nothing short of amazing - and much of that knowledge (wisdom if you will) has been amassed by lay people. I'd expect it of seminary educated professionals, but the level of theological knowledge possed by the laity out there is a witness to the power of the Holy Spirit to "gird up the loins of our minds." My prayer is that God would use this avenue to continue to make us all more like Christ through the edification wrought by the loving interaction between brothers and sisters in Christ and through the accurate application of His Word in our lives. May God humble us all.

Post Tinebrae Lux

My Journey

Where to begin? Well, I was raised in a Southern Baptist environment and was indoctrinated into the SB way of thought. This included dispensationalism, "choice" salvation, deacon-led church leadership, the evil of rock music, alcohol prohibition, etc., etc. It's still amazing to me how much of mans' indoctrination we blindly accept as Truth. Thanks be to God, however, that He has allowed me a mind with which to ponder, a conscience with which to see, and infinitely most importantly, His Word with which to guide me. When I was in my very early thirties I began a journey of extensive personal transformation. This was due, in large part to emotional, physical, and spiritual trials I was going through. During the early part of this journey, I noticed that the "just pray to God and everything will be all right" mentality just didn't work. I was beginning to see that God wasn't really concerned with making sure all good Baptists had nice clothes to wear, children who were well-behaved, pot-luck dinners where no dishes contained broccolli, and the like. Life wasn't the "bowl of cherries" (to use a worn out cliche) that it should have been. I mean, I went to church, I studied my Bible, I prayed often - and God still didn't care (or at least that's how I saw it). What was wrong with this God who "loved good little boys and girls"? Why was He allowing this hell in my life? Didn't He know that I was on my way to becoming a deacon? Didn't He know that if people saw how messed up things were that my witness wouldn't be as strong? Didn't He know that the lost world needed to see someone who "had it together" in order to convince them that they needed to be saved?
That's when I truly started to question what it was that I believed and why I believed it. I praise God that, through all the "stuff", my belief that His Word was Truth never waivered. Through all the storms, I trusted His Word as my lighthouse. Only that lighthouse started pointing me in directions I didn't want to go. I started to become aware that the God of the Bible wasn't fitting into my box any more. I began to see that He was above my preconceptions. He wasn't interested at all in me looking like a "good Christian" - He was interested in me looking like Christ. And through that, I began to really see what Christ looked like. He didn't have 2.2 kids and a loving, doting wife. He didn't have a blue pinstripe suit to wear to church. He wasn't a deacon in good standing. He didn't drive a Suburban. He was a homeless, often hungry, always relentless, passionate man who railed against the establishment and loved with all that was in Him. I think if Christ would have been born in the 1950's, then he'd have made a great hippie in the 1960's (please-I mean no disrespect to Christ and He knows that). I mean, look at Him - he went around breaking the "church" rules, teaching the masses that the church had the rules all screwed up (Mat. 5), leading poor, dumb souls astray (at least in the establishment's eyes), starting revolutions, and, in effect, spitting in the face of the establishment. Can you imagine how He'd be treated today if He did that kind of stuff? The main difference between Him and the hippies is that His was righteous behaviour and the hippies' often was not.
I began to see that the God I'd been led to believe in was nothing more than an idol. This wasn't the real God - the real God was (is) MUCH more awesome, frightening, and powerful than the one I believed in. The God I began to see in the Bible was the Creator of ALL, the sustainer of ALL, and the destroyer of all that He chooses to destroy. You see, I began to understand that man wasn't nearly as strong as I had made him out to be. In fact, I think that's one of the most significant issues with those who adhere to a "choice" salvation position - they exalt man above what he really is. All my trials, all the hell I was going through, death, life, sickness, health, prosperity, poverty - it was all because of God. God is responsible for ALL of it. And you know what the intriguing thing is - this didn't make me angry at God - it gave me a peace that I cannot explain. For the first time in my life, it wasn't about me - it was about God. And because I still held fast to His Word, I was finally at peace with my surroundings. You see, He really does cause ALL things to work together for those who love Him, to those who are THE called - not because of the called, but because it brings Him glory to do so. The trials aren't there because He fell asleep, or isn't paying attention, or isn't able to stop them - the trials are there to make me more like Christ and that brings Him glory. I CAN'T bring Him glory - only Christ through me. When we begin to see man for who he really is, clay in the Potter's hand (Rom. 9), we REALLY begin to live. The freedom Christ talked about in John 8 - that's what we begin to experience. I'm free from trying to get others to approve of my actions. I'm free from trying to earn God's favor. I'm free from the bondage of the "doctrines of man". And that freedom comes not from anything I've done - but from God Himself. My only obligation is to become like Christ - when I do that, all those do's and dont's become irrelevant. If I truly reflect Christ in all that I do, I don't have to worry about keeping the rules - I'll already be doing it. And you know what else? God is now, always has been, and always will be in complete and utter control of all that happens.

Post Tinebrae Lux

Christian Love

I read in a post by another blogger the statement, "The consumption of alcoholic beverages is arguably the greatest social evil of our time." I strongly disagree; I believe the lack of Christian love is the greatest social evil EVER - at least with respect to those who claim Christianity. Our "Christian" culture is rampant with arrogance, pride, and selfishness. We speak of love, and then turn and devour each other. We have lost Christ in our desire to Christianize the world. I am reminded of Paul's words in I Cor. 13; he said that even though he spoke with the tongue of angels, but had not love, he was nothing more than a clanging symbol. Isn't that what we've become - clanging symbols? Aren't we, for the most part, a pack of self-righteous zealots spouting our own brand of Christianity and denouncing those who disagree with us as heretics? Again, Paul said that there abided faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love. When we look openly and honestly at the life of Christ (as observed by the Gospel writers), we see one who pours himself out to those whom the Church has pronounced as unworthy of God's love. The poor, the prostitutes, the tax collectors, the brawlers, the crude fishermen. What a travesty that the church today has lost it's first love - no, has lost love altogether. Sure, we send missionaries to poor and underdeveloped countries, but what about His body here? I love the passage in Rom. 10 where Paul says, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring the good news." Have you ever really read that passage? Why in the world would Paul make reference to "feet" when he's talking about those who spread the gospel? Wouldn't it have made more sense to say, "How beautiful are the mouths of those who spread the Gospel"? No, and here's why: we've distorted the gospel into making it a "spoken" gospel. You know, the Roman Road stuff. But that's not the Gospel - the true Gospel is a living Gospel - one that speaks and acts in accordance with Christ's kind of love. You see, we've taken the command to make disciples and turned it into a command to "make people confess Christ." A little like the Crusaders - only we don't use swords and dungeons. We use fear of an eternal hell and fear of ostricization. We use the power of the pulpit to manipulate the masses into conformity to "doctrines of man". That's not love. Love is pouring oneself out for those around him/her. Love is becoming so selfless that your needs, desires, wants become my own. Love is releasing our expectations. Take a look at Christ again - who was it that received the bulk of Christ's antagonism? It wasn't the prostitutes, it wasn't the imbibers, it wasn't even the theives (tax collectors); it was the Pharisees. And why? Was it not because, for all their religious zealotry, that they were unable to love? Christ called them "whitewashed tombs" - very lovely and "religious" on the outside, but inside full of decay and rot. Brothers and sisters, this should not be so. How can we say that we are filled with Christ's love when the Christian divorce rate is roughly equal to that of the secular world? How can we say that we are filled with Christ's love when churches split over what kind of music is played during the worship service? Or when Deacons run the Pastor off? Or when the Pastor runs members off? When will we learn to let go of our selfish expectations of others and empty ourselves into those around us? Please don't misunderstand - love is not some warm, fuzzy feeling where we all turn into "flower-children" and run around hugging each other. Sometimes love is hard - but ALWAYS love is centered on the other person - not ourselves. Until we turn the tide of self-centered religious zealotry toward self-less love for others, the church will be nothing more than a meeting place for those who wish to seek God's approval through their religious works.
Post Tinebrae Lux

Introduction

Hey there everyone.

This is my first blog, so I'm sure I'll get many things wrong in the early stages. As you can tell by the blog name, I adhere to what is commonly referred to as the "doctrines of grace". I don't like being called a Calvanist, but rather, a monergist or Sovereigntist. I am Southern Baptist by heritage, but don't fit in well with most SB's as my stances on several issues are at odds with the majority of SB's (at least those with whom I'm familiar). Those stances include (1) seperation of church and state, (2) sovereignty of God in His election of the saints, (3) God's approval of alcohol, (4) the need for the elimination of the invitation in worship services, (5) the need for return to an elder style of church leadership, and several others. Thanks for stopping by and feel free to post comments regarding any of the above-mentioned issues or your own. I will note, however, that I am not a Theologian, just an avid student of scripture.

Peace and grace to all,

GR