How we Reacted

(The Reactions to Oslo)

Enough time has passed since this summer's events in Oslo to give an opportunity to reflect.  The way we reacted says much about what we believe about ourselves, one other, and humanity at large.

In Oslo, Norway, "one man with a belief" (a quote the killer used) murdered nearly 100 strangers in cold blood  [I will not use his name.  He is unworthy of the attention.]

Reaction to the slaughter was predictable.  It was denounced and called tragic, and rightly so.

Assumptions and accusations abounded.

First, there was an expectation that it was a violent Islamist.  With the trends in such events since 9/11, this should come as no great surprise.

Next, Muslim groups were outraged that people made the assumption that Islamists were responsible.  Implication: only an anti-Muslim bigot would assume that Islamists were connected to such an act of violence.  No.  Wait.  Only an anti-Muslim racist, or this one Islamist who tried to claim responsibility for it, but retracted the claim when it turned out to be some blond local.  It seems al-Nasser didn't get the talking points.

One scapegoat down.  Three to go.

The (not-so) New Atheism has taught us to believe that the religion is the source of all the world's ills.  They apply some classic Monty Python logic:

"If she weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood... and therefore ... a witch!"

And so... *drum roll*...  he must be a Christian extremist! 

Of course the killer is a Christian.  He even said so in his Manifesto!  (right?)

He writes on page 1307 of his online manifesto:
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.  -- [red text / Underline is mine.] (source)

That statement's author cannot distinguish between affinity for the cultural trappings of Christian influence, and True faith in Christ.  Sadly, neither can many self-styled pastors.

Jesus himself teaches that it takes more than a *claim* of faith to actually *have* it.  People today are offended when someone asks them to authenticate their claims of Christian faith and practice.  But it needs to be done.  (Matt 7; Matt 23)  We're even taught to test *ourselves* to see whether we are in the faith.

Fortunately, the "Militant Christian" angle didn't gather very much momentum.  His association with the political right was either accepted without comment, or considered tangential to his motives, because that angle was quickly ignored, as well.  They soon went looking elsewhere.

The really interesting part is where people went next.

It was almost universally assumed that he was a "sick individual", he was "mentally ill", he was "troubled" or some other term that would identify him as having acted by reason of being mentally unfit to make a rational decision.

The nearly universal reaction could be summed up with the phrase "rational people don't do such things."

Mental illness is used as the last scapegoat, which is pretty unfair to all of those who, while suffering from mental illness do not endanger themselves or others.

It lead me to consider why so many commentators felt obliged to make that point.  Ultimately, if a monster of his magnitude is found to be "sane", it would have some very unsettling implications:

1. If  he's an otherwise rational person, these heinous actions would have been performed by man with a rational mind.
1. This would clash with our cherished belief in the basic 'goodness' of humanity.
1. If *not all* people are good,  then I am no longer *automatically* justified as good.
2. This would clash with our popular (idolatrous) belief in the supremacy of Reason.
2. If an otherwise rational person can commit atrocities, then the link between convictions and behavior proves that some belief really *is* objectively wrong, however 'sincerely' it may be held.  
1. This clashes with Post-Modern Pluralism and cultural Relativism.
3. If no clinical/biological explanation exists to distinguish him as being "inhuman" and "other"...
1. The gap between what he is, and who we are grows uncomfortably small.  It opens the possibility that we might (under some very rare and specific circumstances) be capable of making the same cold-blooded choices that he did. 
1.  ( And which of us wants to seriously consider ourselves capable of such dark motives 
4. If we cannot blame his actions on some medical or mental deficiency, we are left with the one explanation we have being trying to rule out and suppress since the Enlightenment
1. The Existence of Moral Evil.

Titus -- The intersection of Grace and Holiness

The pendulum forever swings.

No matter how carefully people are taught, we have a history of over-correcting the problems we purpose to solve.

You've seen it:  the guy who plans to get back into shape, starts to spend 40 hours a week at the gym. The shy kid from High School, becomes the Campus Party Animal. The girl who somehow became the next Imelda Marcos when all she wanted was update her wardrobe.

It's no different with ideas.  Even 'religious' ones.

The classic example is the relationship between grace and holiness.

Let's start with a group of Christians who see their faith as a rigid system of do's and don'ts.  A preacher comes to town, and explains to people that Grace is a gift.  That God's love for us doesn't rise and fall with the moral value of our behaviour.  We come to him with the faith of a child.  Gospel!  Good news!.  A joy, freedom and relief washes over that group.

Time passes, until some socially acceptable sin, widely practiced by the group needs correcting.  They were just taught about grace.  How can this be?  And some take offense to the "legalism" of the preacher who (until recently) spoke so kindly to them.

In any group where Holiness is greatly emphasized, there is a danger of becoming morally self-reliant.  In other groups where Grace is emphasized, there is a danger of neglecting --or even rejecting-- the ethical obligations that are implicit in basic Christian living.

Paul's short letter to Titus does a great job of holding the two ideas in balance.

Are you prone to ethical self-reliance?  Paul answers this clearly.

Titus 3:4-7 (ESV)

⁴But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, ⁵he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, ⁶whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 There is nothing in ourselves that we can point to as an explanation for why He showed mercy to us rather than the guy next door.

Right now, this is the part that Christians really like to hear.  That is, this message does nothing to endanger our subjective, Post-modern, anti-authority culture that elevates 'Self' to the highest place in determining value, meaning and ethics.

But what happens when you mention Christian ethical obligation?  Hardly a moment goes by before they point to Galatians and Colossians, and verses that touch upon the Law.  They chafe and argue that the Law is irrelevant, that it is for freedom that we were set free, and that Christians were set free from the Law.

Without going into a breakdown of Propitiation (the meaning of Christ doing away with the Curse of the Law)  let's confine our discussion to this same little book by Paul.  The one that already affirmed salvation apart from works.

In this book, Paul teaches:

Titus1:1 -- That he is a servant of God, and that the knowledge of truth accords with godliness.
Titus 1:5-7 -- The qualifications of an elder.  There are vices which would exclude him from eligibility, and virtues whose absence would exclude him.  In short, there are ethical expectations on both the elder personally, and also (verse 9) vocationally.
Titus 1:10-11 -- Insubordination (The self-rule that defines the current generation) is condemned.  Empty talkers (people whose teaching departs from Biblical authority, in opposition to what is taught 2 Peter 1:20) are not to be entertained, embraced, or understood, but to be silenced.  In fact, it goes on to say that a sharp rebuke is necessary that their faith be sound.
Titus 1:16 -- "They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works.  They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work."  Notice the weight given to the actions of these people.  They say all the right things, but are not believers, and here's how we know it, by what they do.
Titus 2:1-8 has a comprehensive list of who should exhibit positive behaviour.  Old and young.  Man and woman.  Even slaves toward their masters, have ethics that are expected of them simply because they are Christian.  The dominant theme is self-control.

What reason is given for this list?  in 2:5, it is so that the Word of God may not be reviled, in verse 8, it is to keep our opponents from having anything evil to say of us, and n verse 10, that our conduct would "adorn the doctrine of God our Savior."

What is the Christian life about?  2:11-14 "Grace has appeared, bringing salvation, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age... who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works."

To drive the point home still further, he reminds us in Titus 3:3 that we were once worldly, but ought not be so any longer, but (in response to Titus 3:4, quoted above) we are admonished in no uncertain terms:

Titus 3:8 (ESV)

⁸The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

And yet, even after all these admonitions to good works, with specific godly behaviour encouraged, and specific sins condemned, he seemed to think it necessary to add one last time, in verse 3:14:

"And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need and not be unfruitful.

Is it legalistic to raise an ethical standard for Christians to follow?  Is it a rejection of the Grace Paul preached with such care?  Well, looking at the fact that this same Paul wrote the letter to Titus, and it was thick with encouragement to objectively moral behaviour, it would not seem these things need to be at odds with one another.

Open Response to an Enviromentalist's Objections

The status update I wrote that started this off said: 

The environmental crowd keeps telling me to use electricity on off-peak hours because it is better for the environment...
...so -- I set my oven to self-clean during Earth Hour

 The Environmentalist on my friends list was upset, and replied:

that's awfully christian of you. you'd think that trying to look out for the environment and working towards minimizing one's carbon footprint so the future might be a little less toxic and there might be fewer issues with scarcity would b...e on the game plan for the one god and his followers in the 21st century. I guess the flat earther mentality of "It was put here for me to use and abuse as I see fit" is still alive and well even after the age of colonialism...

taking pride in working against something that is intended to be a positive gesture and tool for educating people on the dangers that our world is facing due to poor resource allocation and exploitation instead of putting forth a different strategy (if that is one's issue with the whole thing and not just a blatant disregard for the well being of the environment and those that share it with you/those that will inherit it) is pretty shameful if you ask me.

Then he added:

I bet if J.C. were alive today he would be a environmental socialist. Just saying...

 Here is my reply:


 Like you, I am intentionally provoking an emotional response, with the hope that people will stop and re-think certain things.
If you want to talk about what those things are, or what I think a more reasonable approach to Environmental stewardship should look like, or the hypocrisy within the movement that I object to, I will be happy to do so. 

But I would first like to take a moment to specifically discuss your reaction to my statement, as I had said when I first replied to you.

There seem to be 2 things you come to my fb page to weigh in on.  One -- to defame Christ personally (or Christians generally), the other -- to tout a particular brand of Environmentalism.

I don't see this as  a coincidence.
These are two things that you obviously care about.  You aren't stopping in to talk about your personal triumphs and tragedies, or ask about mine -- you are coming with Issues in mind.  This is not a complaint, I actually enjoy the dialogue with people I disagree with.  It forces me to think about my own positions more clearly, and either re-frame, or change them entirely.

I suspect that the visceral nature of the your first post has an unrehearsed honesty to it.   Your statements also have a familiar ring to them.

Your use of emotional appeals and accusations of guilt in an attempt to either "convert" me to your view or abandon my own...
Your language laying out a "Heaven" (better world) and "Hell" (toxic, scarce) as the moral consequence of my choices...
Your personal indignation in response to my lack of eco-Orthodoxy and (heretic that I am?) your impulse to brand me with a "scarlet letter" (Colonialist Flat-Earther) and pass judgment my personal morality (Shameful) as a result of my eco-apostasy.

How is this unlike judging others by a "Canon" of Prophets, Saints and Sacred writings? (Perhaps ancient texts and holy men, have been replaced with Avatar, Suzuki, IPCC, and WWF, but the effect is the same.)

But there's more, isn't there?
There is a Plan of Salvation (Reduce, Reuse Recycle).  Or should I say Creed?
There is a system of atonement and absolution (Carbon Offsets, "Terrapass") for those sins you "simply must commit".  -- Maybe indulgences would be a better term?

I wonder if you appreciate that your world view is unable to sustain the objectively moral demands you place on it?
Your antagonism toward God seems much like the supposed "New Atheism", which could best be summed up with the phrase "There is no God and I hate him".


From roughly that starting point, you have attempted to lay moral guilt at my feet.  Now, don't misunderstand me, Moral guilt really is something I have in abundant supply.  But your accusations against me are in direct conflict with your convictions.

Here's why:

Either we were created by a personal God, or we are an uncreated and random coalition of atoms.
If created, a failure to live according to that purpose could incur real moral guilt.  (But you reject this view.)
If uncreated, we have no set purpose, and thus, no objective measurement for guilt or innocence.

You're smart enough to realize that random coalitions of atoms make no moral distinction between planting a forest, or burning it down.  Between toxic, or non-toxic. Between life, or non-life.
Scarcity and abundance become morally ambivalent ideas.  Even arguments about what is left for following generations -- while emotionally compelling -- are, in this framework, sadly irrational.

Do lightning strikes, tsunamis, volanoes, and locust swarms bear moral guilt for their environmental impact? No. So, if we are merely part of an ecosystem, a biological cog in the wheel, why should it matter?  Does it make any difference, ethically, whether the forest was destroyed by the careless match or the locust cloud  if it's equally gone either way?
But--
As you have rightly demonstrated, our behaviours and choices actually Do matter!  Objectively!
There IS such a thing as moral guilt.  We Do have a conscience.  Defying it really Does produce guilt.  Certain types of putting one's own interests ahead of others Really ARE shameful!

It is clear that you are very zealous for your present religion.
Even so, it would not surprise me if -- when this one eventually proves inadequate for you -- that this religious energy of yours turn toward its proper Object: 
The One who bore your moral guilt on Himself, to reconcile you to Himself, and give you Peace.
The One who Loves you even while you hate Him.

Your are right to say that many Christians hold their convictions for superficial, emotional and irrational reasons. (As do many environmentalists.)  This is a fair criticism.
This does nothing to negate the legitimate rational arguments that either group put forward.
Cheers!

An Exposition: (Philippians 1:1) "In Christ"

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,  
   To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: (Phil 1:1)

The greeting in a letter is often scanned without much thought or fanfare given to the content -- much like the opening credits of a film: the audience tends to view it as a distracting formality, and not part of the content itself.

But if we hold to the inspiration of scripture (as I hope you do) it follows that even the simple opening lines of the letters were chosen intentionally, and have something to say to the reader today.

 In the simple act of identifying the author and recipient of the letter, we learn much about: how the authors identify themselves (and something about their theology), how they identify their audience, and something about the intended purpose of the letter itself.

"Paul and Timothy" are credited as sending this letter.  Some letters, Paul sent in his own name only.  Peter's letters only carried his own name, as did James and Jude.  John didn't even use his own name.  But Paul chose to include Timothy's name along with his own.

Paul was conscientious about fulfilling the command to 'make disciples'.  He did this with regular believers, but beyond that, he also specifically trained leaders (like Timothy and Titus) to equip the Church, and he trained his leaders to do the same.  Including Timothy's name beside his own, he has included Timothy in the writing of this letter.  He is not threatened by the rise of new leaders, but rather, he is helping them rise.  All who read this letter will now identify Timothy as a faithful Christian leader in whom Paul has confidence.  As such, they too, will have confidence in him.

They identify themselves as servants of Christ Jesus. This is one of Paul's favorite titles for himself. The greek word used is servant or slave, but the manner in which Paul uses it springs from an Old Testament practice of voluntarily committing to the lifelong service of a master you love, even after he has declared you a free man. (1,2)  This is a beautiful picture of the gospel.

Specifically, they are servants of Christ Jesus.  Paul might have said "God", or "the Lord" or even "the Lord Jesus Christ" (which he uses later this chapter)  but he chose "Christ Jesus".

For one thing, this affirms Jesus' Resurrection.  Obviously, one cannot be the personal property of a dead man or an idea.  If Raised, then that affirms His humanity.  This was important in the period where Greek understanding of metaphysics had a dim view of the material world, and Gnostic heresies were rampant.  At the same time, no pious Jew would hold a mere man in the place of esteem that only God deserves.  This would be idolatry.  One must conclude, if he is no idolater, that Paul is affirming Jesus' divinity.

Notice the lack of title "Lord" with His name.  I would argue that this omission, together with the devotion implicit in his use of servant, takes us beyond the mere Sovereign/subject relationship and sets up a genuine personal affection for Jesus in Himself, apart from the titles, majesty, and the creature-ly obligation of worship. It underscores his own eagerness to do so freely and with joy.  This ought to move us to a similar adoration not merely of God in the abstract, but of the person of Jesus himself.

Now to the recipients.

This was an open letter to "all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi".  It was customary for the Early Church to gather together and read aloud the letters they and other Churches had received from the apostles (Example: 1) publicly and for the edification of all.

The word "saints" causes some confusion.  It can be translated "holy", "sacred", or "saint".  In today's vernacular, that often expresses a person of magnificent character, or who is unusually self-sacrificing in some way.  That is not what is being said in this context.

Paul's letter is directed to a large group, a body from which two smaller groups (overseers and deacons) can be identified.  The modern sense of the word would stress "few" but this stresses "many" especially with the use of "all".  In fact, the "all" is to bring attention to the wide scope of people the letter is intended to benefit.  This isn't just for the guys in charge, but to "all the saints" meaning, the whole assembly of believers.

I especially appreciate that Paul mentioned the entire city.  Doubtless there are factions of believers here, as there were in Corinth.  (Some follow Paul, some Cephas, etc).  Nevertheless, the message was for all believers throughout the city regardless of their sectarian loyalties.  This is consistent with Paul's vision of the unity of Christ's body transcending our various differences.

"In Christ" is key to understanding Paul's use of "saint" (sacred/holy).  It is the hinge upon which his epistle to the Romans turns:  we have been united to Him in His death, and raised with Him in new life. (see Romans 6 for more detail.)  This is the New Birth, the Gift of Christ's Righteousness ('alien righteousness'), our Adoption as Sons and Heirs.  This is the Sinner's hope of the Gospel, and the faith we profess.

Finally, it addresses those who lead in the Church, in 2 categories.  The "Overseers" and the "Deacons".  These two categories of leadership are both important in the Church.  In order to become such a leader, one must first demonstrate certain qualities of Christian maturity, wisdom and character.  At least, that is the Biblical expectation.

They differ in the roles they play, however.  The Deacon - as we see in Acts 6 is important in that it makes sure the day-to-day operations of the church are correctly tended to.  In this case, the feeding of widows.  In the modern sense, this can take various forms.  Key to the understanding of this passage is that the Twelve understood the importance of the continual giving of themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word.

How many pastors today are so burdened with the minutia of book-keeping and building maintenance that they cannot give proper place to the very thing that the Twelve carefully guarded their time for doing?  If you read to the end of that passage in Acts, once the Deacons step up and take up the miscellany of running the Church, and free up the Twelve for prayer and the ministry of the word, what happened in verse 7? A "move of God". 

7. Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Maybe Churches today could look to see what lessons could be learned from that?

To sum up:
We saw where Paul and Timothy looked to find their identity.  It is "In Christ".
We saw where they looked to find the Church in Philippi's identity:  also "In Christ".

This tells us where we ought to find our identity.  More than our position in society, employment, position in family, education, where we're from or where we think we're going.  We, too, must look to Christ to find our identity.  Ultimately we are either "in Him", or we are Outsiders(1), "strangers to the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world"(2).

If you find yourself in the second group, and desire mercy, cry out to Him, he is good and gracious to give it.

Priority of Place.

What most fascinates me about the internet, is that it can spark dialogue between people who might otherwise never meet.

It happens every so often, that I get the chance to engage in a back-and-forth exchange about beliefs.  These exchanges can stretch our thinking, expose weaknesses in our positions and arguments, challenge assumptions, and can even expose wrong motives, like pride.

Other times, however, it's just one more trip through a well-worn cul-de-sac.  In this case, it was a typical sales pitch for why his denomination was the best one.

Consider, as a backdrop for the conversation, the text in Luke 9:49-50.  Here, the disciples saw someone acting in Jesus' name, and were planning to stop them.  [The conversation is related with some different details in Mark 9:38-41.]  This same  zealous attitude was also seen in Joshua in Numbers 11.

There are two points that Jesus is raising here. Properly held in tension, these two points keep us from going off the rails toward either extreme..

Jesus makes it as clear as one might possibly make it, that there are no gray areas in our allegiances.  You are "all in" or "not at all in" when it comes to your allegiance with Jesus.  This chafes against our post-modern, politically correct attitudes of today.  But then, that ought not surprise us, because "friendship with the world is emnity to God".

When Jesus said that "whoever is not against you is for you", one possible explanation would be to say that tolerance or even indifference is the same as support.  That which doesn't actively oppose you is for you.  -- Can it be shown that Jesus was actually forcing a binary yes/no, in/out choice?

Look at the other things he said.  Jesus threw down the gauntlet when he said "whoever is not with me is against me, whoever does not gather with me scatters."  Matthew 11:30.  He spoke of dead men as sleeping, and unbelieving men as dead, even as they lived.  He berated the leaders of his day in Matthew 23, leaders who bar the way to heaven, and do not go themselves.  They tie up heavy burdens, and do not lift a finger to help.  These he called unclean, making those who trusted them impure, harming those who trusted him.

He called Zaccheaus saved, though he had been lost.  His parables were binary, too: sheep and goats, seeing and blind, lost and found.

Jesus, throughout the gospels, saw our position with God in black-and-white clarity.

What is the counter-point, that is held in tension?

Jesus had a set of followers.  The Apostles.  He had hand-chosen men to do the work of proclaiming the Gospel and building His Church.  Right?  This is true. He did pick them, and that was why.

But at the same moment that Jesus is telling us that there IS a clear and essential difference between in and out, for and against, he tells us something else, as well.

God, in his wisdom, knows fallen man's tendency to became tribal.  It's the same story that we've all heard before:

You are like me, so you are good. but they are "other" so they are 'bad'.

  So, naturally, God, in Scripture, records some people who are not part of Jesus entourage:
 -- The guy casting out demons in Jesus name in the passage we began with
 -- The man from whom "Legion" was cast into the swine?  He wanted to follow Jesus.  But instead, he was commanded by Jesus to 'tell them how much the Lord has done" for him "and how he has had mercy" on him.  So he became an evangelist to the Decapolis.
 -- A Samaritan woman - herself an outcast woman among an outcast people - led much of her village to faith in Jesus.
 -- There was also the small matter of a guy named Saul, who was not one of the original disciples, and specifically disavowed any tutoring by any of the Apostles.


None of these were part of the "entourage".  They were (only some of the) outsiders who had a love and faith in God.  Who proclaimed Jesus, and yet had no connections to the "right" group of believers.

Jesus specifically named the first guy as an ally.  Thus, as part of His kingdom.
The man we identify with "Legion" was commanded to proclaim the good news in Decapolis, as surely as the Apostles were commanded to do so in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the outermost parts of the earth.
The Samaritan woman had the rare honor of having Jesus speak plainly about being the Messiah.
Saul became the Apostle Paul, by whose pen God gave us much of the New Testament.

What is the lesson here?
We must be conscious of where we are finding our identity.

It did not matter to Jesus whether you were one of the "Three" or the "Twelve" or the "Seventy" or the far-flung individuals whose lives he changed that never quite did attach to the 'core group' but instead brought their sparks of faith far and wide to their own corners of the world.  To Jesus, you were not "with my group" or "against it".  You were with ME or against ME.

When we talk about our faith, what do we talk about?

Do we not tire of people trying to win us over to join, or acknowledge the superior claim of another denomination?  Out of the church that 'gets it wrong' and into the church that 'gets it'.  (Whichever one that might be in your case.)

Is not this walk with God more than which position we take on a doctrine that does not touch the essentials of faith?  Whether we are new technology, or old school liturgy?  Chairs or Pews? Organs or Band?

When we speak, what do we glorify?  Is it ourselves?  "Our" church? (As though anyone less than Jesus himself can truly call it "mine".)  Our favourite pastor or author?  Our methods?  Our favourite doctrines?  Our cultural relevance?  Our programs, or Missions effectiveness, or outreach tools, etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Or do we speak of Jesus Christ, first, last and always, with the sort of awe and love that could be expected from a people that claims that he really IS the Great, Good, God and Redeemer of all who will call on His precious Name.

Let us look first to Jesus Christ, and whether we are one in Him.  Let our us-and-them divisions instead be based on whether or not He calls us "His".

We may find that some of our differences are not so big as we thought.

What Kind of a God? A Brief Rationale of the Gospel.

It shouldn't be too controversial to say that if ANY God is to be worshiped and adored, that God must be worth worshiping.

It might also seem reasonable to say that any God worth worshiping must necessarily be "Good". (In fact, if this were not so, Atheists would not be attempting to demonstrate that God is "Not" good.)

What do we know about someone who is "Good"?

Someone who is Good is not indifferent to pain, oppression, wickedness, or suffering.

Someone who is Good AND possesses Authority will prevent and/or adequately punish those who have done such things.

If God judged "greater" evils (mentioned above), but not "lesser" evils, then He could not be perfectly Good, and would become unworthy of worship, love, or adoration.

Problem -- if God fully judged EVERY wicked thought, word, and deed, His Goodness would be vindicated. But that same Goodness would sweep up our own guilty thoughts, words, and deeds (and us with it) in judgment.

Solution -- Mercy is provided. A choice is offered.

THIS is the Good News: Those who would recognize both the Goodness of God, and their own wickedness are offered a Saviour.

They are offered a Saviour who loved and valued them while they were "still wicked". Jesus Himself was morally innocent, but accepted our guilt. He is worthy to Judge, but submitted to Judgment. He is worthy of Worship, but accepted the Wrath due Our sins.

We can trust in Christ as the one who "stood in our Law-place", and died the death or sins required. We can share the New Life that his Resurrection promises, and (most importantly) we can be Reconciled to God in Christ.

The sin we are guilty of is not simply dismissed, or waved away. It is fully punished in the obscene trial, humiliation, beating, mocking, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The Cross is evidence of just how committed God is to remaining Good, even while providing a means of Mercy to sinful men.

Those of us who trust in Christ, stand forgiven. The Holy requirement of justice against sin is satisfied in Christ Jesus. That is why we esteem the work on the Cross so highly. The Christian has been Adopted into the Household of God, and knows the Love of God.

Some, sadly, will fail to recognize the Goodness of God. Others will deny and excuse their own wickedness. These will see no need to embrace God's mercy.

And yet, God will still be Good.

But consider this: a Good God whose mercy has been scorned has only one other card to play.

Righteous judgment of Evil.
-----------------------

Christ's head, or yours?
When the time comes to account for your sins, where will the judgment fall?

Jesus said (Luke 12):

⁴"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. ⁵But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

The Clash of Law and Grace

Recent years have seen a subtle change in how people speak of "Law" and "Grace". The words themselves have not changed. The Biblical texts that are quoted haven't either. The shift might best be described as the emphasis, the mood, or the underpinning of each word.

Law is presented as a destructive force, a judgment to be feared, a prison to be escaped, and ultimately a primary tool of humanity's chief Adversary.

Grace, on the other hand, is portrayed as antagonistic to this Great Foe. It protects us from the Law. Some would say, destroys the Law. The Old and New Testaments would be (as it were) in conflict with one another.

It becomes important, therefore, to a Christian: Are Law and Grace in Conflict? And if so, what implication does this have on a Christian's life?

Students of Early Christian History may remember the name Marcion. He rejected the Old Testament because he saw God in the Old Testament as overly harsh, but Jesus in the Gospels as much nicer. He denied that they were the same God.

That's one approach to Law and Grace that is still taken today -- dismiss Law as irrelevant. Proceed as though the Old Testament was never written, or at least ignore large sections of it.

There are problems with this approach. 1) Jesus claimed to be the pivotal theme of Hebrew scriptures. (2) It also ignores Jesus' strong warning in Matthew concerning the Law. (3) The New Testament is deeply rooted in and intertwined with the Old Testament.

That said, there is clear evidence that there IS something of an either/or dilemma with Grace and Law. (Galatians and Romans in particular show this tension.)

The Christian life is exemplified by Faith, which is described as explicitly antithetical to righteousness by the Law. How do we resolve this?

First, as Christians, we must guard against adopting a false understanding of Law. The Muslim view, for example is sometimes mistaken for the Christian one.

Islam's view of Law is much different than the classical Christian (or Jewish) one. God, in the Muslim framework, can decree whatsoever he wishes, and the Decree is what causes something to become morally good or morally evil.

The Christian view is very different. God in himself is altogether Holy.
The Triune God does not arbitrarily choose to make some things good and some things evil. Quite the opposite.

God's own Holiness is the benchmark against which all moral measurements are made. For this same reason, He cannot Lie, He cannot be tempted by Evil, and He cannot deny Himself. Is this not the reason we love God's word? Because it is rooted in His person and character?

So then, His Character is unchanging. And the entire Bible finds its origin in this same unchanging Character. His Law as revealed in the Old Testament, is something of a window into God's own character. Even the Sermon on the Mount was an example of Jesus expounding on the Ten Commandments (e.g. Adultery, Murder) in the context of the New Covenant.

Whatever way we resolve this, we must be very careful to accurately depict some seemingly contrary things.

We must consider the Holiness of God's character as shown in His Law.
We must consider the futility of trying to satisfy God by keeping the Law.
We must consider the position of Grace working by faith.

We must reconcile these things without destroying what God has said about any of them.
We must do so in a way that honours the Person and Work of Christ.

The Law is Good (Romans 7:12, 7:16, 7:22, I Timothy 1:8).
The Law condemns us all as guilty. (Romans 3:20)
We do not discard the Law (Romans 3:31)
Those who seek justification by the Law are cursed if they do not keep it perfectly. (James 2:10, Gal 5:3)
Where does this leave us?
Since none of us has been righteous, we are all lawbreakers.
We all stand guilty before a perfectly righteous God.

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—
the LORD detests them both. -- Proverb 17:15

So what hope is there for us?

If the Curse is to be broken, there are only two options:
- The Law that demands death for our sin must change
- or We must change.

What did God do? What could He do?
If the Law is an expression of His Character, and His Character does not change, how could He change the Law?

The Law declared our guilty hearts to us. It revealed our weakness to us.
It caused a holy despair of trying to prove our own goodness to God.
It showed us that we need a Saviour.
It drove us to Christ.

So Jesus Christ, born of a woman and born under the Law (Gal 4:4), lived a guiltless life. Death held no claim on Him. And yet He (God) laid down His life for the ungodly. He, sinless, died the sinner's death.

[Is the Atheist's charge of "cosmic child abuse" fair? No. Because Christ died willingly, this isn't an accurate depiction of the Atonement. Jesus CHOSE to absorb the full wrath of a Holy God upon sin.]

Has the Law changed? Not one bit.

It is still the righteous demand of a Holy God? Yes.
Are we still under its judgment? No, with one condition: Not if we are "in Christ".
If we are "in Christ", we have died with Him, (and have been raised to new life).

The Law is just as it was.
But WE have been changed. (2 Cor 5:19)