The Law and All That
Both on my blog and others in recent months, there has been some debate about the role of the Law, Reconstruction and how the Old Testament Law may apply, or not, to society. I think that this is a really crucial issue as it affects how we should (and shouldn’t) go about seeking to affect society - something that, as citizens and ambassadors of the Kingdom, we are certainly called to do. I chose not to give a full statement about my understanding of the Law as I don’t want to do things in isolation (by the way, I feel as bloggers we should be careful no to be too hasty and peremptory in our statements about doctrine. Blogs work best as aids to discussion not platform for pontification!)
I am still working on a discussion document then but, because of some of the ideas that are being ‘aired,’ I at least wanted to put something out there to at least be considered as part of the discussion. I am posting these thoughts therefore, given originally in response to a posting made on Gavin Deaking’s blog, but they do not represent my final settled position. I will share with recognised and proven ministries before I do that (if it will be helpful to do it at all) but I am hoping that possibly some of the responses to this may help me with my study and consideration. It is rather long, and I have not included Scripture references, but I am willing to give them where requested. I trust that this will help in this aree of debate:
The Mosaic Law was given to the people of Israel for a specific time and in a supervisory role as a nation. Although it does reflect something of the character and the will of God, it is by no means the fullest or clearest expression of his will in terms of the progressive, unfolding nature of God’s revelation. This does not mean that it ceases to be part of the eternal Word of God. Its main function for the Israelites - and by extrapolation to all people (who in their conscience have some sense of the ‘law’ of God) - is to condemn them; to make them aware of their sin, and, because of universal sinful nature, incite and increase their sin and imprison them. In doing do, it serves its main purpose of leading them to the grace that is in Christ, the only one who can set them free.
The Mosaic Law was never intended to be directly applied as an authoritative guide for personal and social ethics – to Christians, to modern Israel or to any other nation – after the coming of Christ. We, as Christians, are directed now not by the Law of Moses but by the life of Christ within us by the Spirit, and by the living Word, the law of Christ written on our heart in the terms of the new covenant. This law is not the Law of Moses, but the law of Christ. The Mosaic Law, along with other parts of the Old Testament, certainly illustrate general principles of God’s will that are filled out, substantiated in the New Testament and vitalised by the Spirit in the heart of the believer. But they are a pale and vague outline compared to the fine-detailed masterpiece of grace that the Spirit works in the heart.
As for its application in civil society, first of all, the false division of the law into ceremonial, civil and moral will not do. It is simply a man-made, convenient division, not one that is clearly spelled out in Scripture. And anyway, Christ is the end of the Law in its entirety. There should be absolutely no question of trying to apply the details of Mosaic Law to civil society. Reconstruction is a completely wrong, and potentially dangerous, turn for Christians to make. As well as being a wrong application of Mosaic Law, it seems to be based on the notion of a Christian nation (a totally flawed concept that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of the Kingdom of God). It becomes especially dangerous when a supposedly ‘Christian nation’ thinks that it can use its power to enforce its values on the rest of the ‘barbaric’ world! It is in danger of becoming the Christian version of Islamic theocracy.
So how then are we, as Christians, to make a difference in society? Specifically, how are we to stop a fallen society in an evil age sliding further into moral anarchy? Firstly, recognise that society will always be fallen until the return of Christ. We cannot ‘Christianise’ the world, though the church will be the single biggest influence in our world before Jesus returns. There are three main ways God will protect and change society:
April 8th, 2006 @ 4:31 am
Wonderful comments! This is a very refreshing change of pace from some of the other views on law that have been expressed recently in the blog sphere. Can’t wait to see the rest of your thoughts on the matter, especially regarding the three fold division. It seems that this issue is really the crux of the matter.
April 10th, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Trevor, I think you have a very good grid to start with but I would still see use for all of scripture in informing the Spirit-filled man as stated in 2Tim 3:16. What do you think?
I am with you on the influence of the Church to the nations not the lording over the nations. But what would you say concerning passages like Isa 2:3-4 “Come let us go to the house of the Lord, to the house of the God og Jacob. He will teach us His ways so that we may walk in His paths. The law will go out from Zion , the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
To what law do you see this passage referring? It seems influence and objective truth both go from Zoin.
The reformers I believe had a much more wholistic view of God’s word than we do. I fear that on both sides the Bible is too compartmentalized. For example, in the Westminster longer catechism the answer to Q191, “What do we pray for in the second petion?”, “the kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” it’s stated this way as it concerns the state. :”the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption,countenanced and maintained by civil magistrates;that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispenced and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins…..”
I”m cooncerned we have an over reaction to anyone who would use certain parts of the Bible for at least a pattern, hence the debate about a reconstruction.
A small movement that has not chance of application until the ack is built.
Thanks for your comments Trevor, thay are alway sharp and filled with honest love for the kingdom.
April 10th, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Hi Trevor,
The current conception I have of restoration theology (which if it is a misconception I would be grateful for correction) is that the trajectory of the ever-increasing kingdom is of a church through which the earth is filled with the glory of God. Presumably therefore it is an ever increasing church and periods will occur in the future when the church becomes the dominant socio-political force (as has happened in past world history and one might argue is increasingly the case in the USA - albeit not “covenant community church” but religious establishment power-bases). Present and past instances have shown this socio-political dominance has expressed itself as “a Christian version of Islamic theocracy”. How should we, as restorationist covenant community church, handle ourselves differently when we enter our period of socio-political predominance? How should we approach law-making and the non-christian minority? How does the 3-point plan by which “God will protect and change society” work out at a time when “the church will be the single biggest influence in our world before Jesus returns” and probably therefore have responsibility for legislation i.e. my primary question is: how do we avoid a return to mosaic type legalism/christian imperialism (to paraphrase your christian version of Islamic theocracy) when we are responsible for legislature at a national/international level given that there will still be non-christians (albeit a minority) who require a “pedagogue”? The heart of my question I guess is that historically we (the church) have always fared well when under pressure/persecution/as a minority but have lost our way somewhat whenever we have been in the social driving seat (albeit only nominally). Perhaps the problem has been that as “the church” grew previously its power structures/organistaions outgrew its depth in relational aspects. We need to be (I believe are being and will be) both big AND beautiful. This can ensure that men of grace, humility, anointing and wisdom (as well as power) lead (and are led)rather than producing christianised politicians who play to the lowest common popular denominator and quick-fix “conservative right” mosaic solutions. It’s great that we are engaging and grappling with this now so that we are ready as our influence continues to grow to really fill the earth with God’s glory rather than a cheap substitute! Peter.
April 11th, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Hi Doug,
Thank you for your comment. Thought-provoking as usual. I would suggest that the Zion-law of OT prophecy is actually pointing toward the law of Christ under the new covenant, and the word of God in its commanding and judging (i.e.ethical) character, being proclaimed by the church. It is important to note however that the nations come to Zion, the church, for guidance (I believe that this will happen as the nations see God’s principles working out practically in the Christian community - the emphasis is on our example). It is not the church riding out on a moral crusade to impose its laws. This is what has happened at times, sadly, and has done more to alienate people rather than to draw people. It is also worth noting that the context is about peace-making between nations - something Christians could do with having more to say about, instead of just talking about the usual subjects of homosexuality, abortion, divorce etc.
April 11th, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Hello Peter,
Welcome to my blog. What an excellent comment! It strikes at the heart of the issue. How do we extend our influence and affect legislation and policymaking without imposing our views? I should point out that to be the greatest influence does not necessarily have to entail taking organisational and legal control in society. We must maintain a distinction between Church and State. You are right to indicate that the two biggest dangers of growing influence for the Church are a kind of ‘Christian’ tyranny and imperialism (or the culture wars that one might argue has been/is the experience in the USA) or a nominal, cultural Christianity that is devoid of the Spirit - or both of course.
I am not sure fully how the growing influence of the Kingdom will work out in detail - partly because of the very organic, pervasive and even hidden nature of the work of the Kingdom - but I would say that 3 things are key:
1. The example of the Church (a city on a hill) that will draw the nations to it for guidance (see my response to Doug’s comment).
2. The raising up of Spirit-fille d men and women with a passion for the Kingdom to positions of influence in all areas of society, to sow seeds of truth, grace and wisdom in those places.
3. The recognition that we cannot enforce and impose moral values but must ‘educate the public conscience to know and desire the will of God’ (John Stott) and to be clear how far a fallen society can conform to the will of God.
Hope that helps though I am sure it raises more questions.
April 11th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Hi Trevor,
Thanks for your welcome and for your reply! I am really excited by the vision of the Church you paint in those last 3 points. My feeling is that to a significant degree what we put in place now, in practice amongst ourselves, is what will determine whether we end up with the corporate character you describe. In other words as we increase there may be the tendency for any ungraciousness in our corporate internal and external relationships to become magnified. It is sometimes easier to be gracious when a minority (or at least when we are a minority a lack of grace causes less obvious and widespread harm). I think we have to step up our effort and vigilance to maintain graciousness towards each other and the world as we increase.
I did not mean to imply that we SHOULD be “taking organisational and legal control in society” but speculating as to what pragmatic issues may arise for the end-game of “the growing influence of the Kingdom” if we become a majority and how that plays into the law of Christ vs law of Moses issue where we will inevitably (?) get drawn into/leant upon to be involved with drafting legislature both as individuals in “positions of influence in all areas of society” and corporately as “the Church (a city on a hill) that will draw the nations to it for guidance”. Perhaps the fundamental question is this: Is the very act of “law making” by any written code a “law of Spirit of life” killing act?!? If so, is it realistic that with growing influence we will be able to avoid getting sucked into law-making? Perhaps to maintain the distinction between Church and State, and to avoid becoming Spirit of life killing legislators, we would have to resist all efforts to move beyond an advisory, educational and exemplary position. Would that not only then leave non-christians to make laws? Through this dialectic I am trying to tread the tight-rope between “fleshing out” a restorationist eschatology to sharpen my theological understanding but not leaving this pastorally barren as I believe these are also “real” issues for us today (and tomorrow).
I’d be grateful for your further thoughts.
Peter
April 14th, 2006 @ 5:14 am
Trevor, I’m confused about the dichotomy between the law of God and the law of Christ that you mention in your response to Doug. The law of Christ is perfect (James 1:25). But so is God’s law (Ps. 19:7). In addition, Mosaic Law is God’s law, as it is not Moses’ law since God wrote it. Jesus even quotes Mosaic Law in Mt. 22:34-40 when he gives the two greatest commandments (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18), which exemplify part of the law that was not fulfilled by Christ (Mt. 5:17-19). Can you help me understand how the law of Christ is different from the law of God that has not been fulfilled?
I also agree that Christians shouldn’t be on a “moral crusade” out to “impose its laws,” but rather Christians should seek for the gospel to change the hearts of men. As hearts are transformed, more Christians will desire glorify God in all things and follow Christ in all ways, including His perfect law.
I also agree with Peter when he states that the Church needs “men of grace, humility, anointing and wisdom” who do not promulgate a social gospel and quick fixes. To avoid “cheap substitutes” and legalism, it is time for the Church to dig into God’s word and develop keen skills in the art of casuistry. (Keeping in mind that legalism refers to abuse of the law not the application of it. See Mt. 5:17-6:4 for examples of how the Judaizers misrepresented God’s law.)
I also am not sure how Christians could resist moving in particular aspects of society, and still reflect the truth the parable of the leaven that permeates through all of the dough (Mt. 13:33). What is influence except being a model for others to follow? If Church does not lead, how can others follow? If the Church does not exemplify a legal or organizational model, then how is the Church leading?
Trevor, what are you thoughts?
April 14th, 2006 @ 9:46 am
Ruth,
Thank you for your comment. I am sorry that I have not got time to give a response at the moment as I go off on holiday tomorrow and I am already pushing it with my dear wife by still being at the Office when I should be helping her get ready! I am making a note to myslef to give you a response when I get back into the office on 24th April.
Bye for now,
Trevor
April 19th, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
You make some great points Trevor. I think the first two pionts of you response to Peter are without question. I do get a little fuzzy when we begin to talk about not imposing morals values. I would agree completely that it is not the job of the church to impose a moral values on the nations and I hope that there is no person in this discussion that would make that arguement. But when the influence of the church is so strong and the testemony so pure that the societies do look to the Church for models of justice and equity (Praise God), by what standard would we expect a civil magistrate to govern? What would we say to a civil official in our church trying to deal with land issues? Surely prayer, and advise from the community at large would be part of the solution but would not an examination of the scriptures be a part as well? If the official sited the Bible as an authoritative part of his decision would he be imposing the Bible on society?
In fact, are not all civil codes the collective morallity of that society imposed on the governed to restrain the evil actions of fallen men? I guess what I am saying is this; The question about civil codes should be who’s morality will be imposed, not will morality be imposed.
I find this quete from C.S. Lewis to be thought provoking;
“A perfect man would never act from a sense of duty; he’d want the right thing more than the wrong one. Duty is only a substitute for love(of God and other people), like a crutch which is a substitute for a leg. Most of us need the crutch at times; but of course it’s idiotic to use the crutch when our own legs(our own loves, taste, habits, etc.)can do the journey on their own.”
April 19th, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
Such an intersting debate! I think we must be careful not to make the same mistake as the disciples and expect that eventually we will see an earthly kingdom characterised by the rule of the visible Church on earth. Surely Christ’s kingdom is primarily a spiritual one, extending in the hearts and lives of the Redeeemed. Of course, Christians will have an influence wherever they are, as salt and light in society, seeking to live as Christ would have them live. The Church should set an example (but will always be imperfect) and can demonstrate to a fallen society that God’s ways and God’s laws are best for society (the Maker’s Instructions). Ultimately, the mission of the Church is not to impose civil codes or laws but to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that hearts and minds are changed by the work of the Holy Spirit. As the hearts of men and women are changed, so Christian standards and morality will be seen in society as Christian influence increases. Individuals such as Wilberforce, Fry, Barnardo had a great influence on society but it was hardly the imposition of Christian legislation. Wasn’t Calvin’s Geneva an attempt to impose a type of reconstructionist model on society - perhaps it worked up to a point but was too imperfect to endure in a fallen world.
April 24th, 2006 @ 9:08 am
I find John’s point helpful in highlighting that the outcome of this law/governance/grace debate at the societal level is heavily influenced by the view we take of body/kingdom/church (although I am not claiming here that church and kingdom are exactly synonymous!).
A traditional evangelical view is individualistic in nature and has a “weak/spiritualised” form of kingdom/church and so we are relegated to extolling “individuals such as Wilberforce, Fry, Barnardo” (amazing as their influence has been).
I would raise a question over whether the disciples’ error was that “eventually we will see an earthly kingdom”. Their question right up to the ascension was “lord, at this time will you restore the kingdom to Israel?” – revealing a tunnel-visioned geopolitically and time limited eschatological understanding as their primary error. Jesus did say of course during his trial that “my kingdom is not of this world” but did he mean that it is ethereal and in no way tangible, or physical or involving real people in the real world – that there is “no such thing as society”!? Is it not possible he meant “not according to the pattern of this world”? Of course he is King of the whole universe and fills all things in every way and so his everlasting and ever increasing kingdom is more than just of this world. However, in this sense his kingdom is therefore absolutely of this world (in terms of real estate!!) and there will be a time when that real estate is returned to the people of God under the reign of God. A “stronger” view of kingdom/body/church allows for a “mass effect” of the people of God beyond individual influence (a city on a hill) although it shouldn’t be an, either/or - individual/society, dichotomy. Should we not rightly have an expectation that “eventually we will see an earthly kingdom” in the new heavens and the new earth, under the physical time and space rule of King Jesus over real flesh and blood subjects? (albeit resurrection flesh and blood!). The question is how we arrive there?! If the journey involves a growing influential church then the issues are real as to the tools we use to influence society as “a people” with “mass effect” and not just as individuals (although I would love to unpack Trevor’s “organic” “yeast-like” church more in this respect!). Does this remain solely a battle for “hearts and minds” as per Doug, agreeing that you can’t legislate for love?
April 25th, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
Rivoting stuff!
Just one thought - when the disciples asked “will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” could they really have still been making the same mistake as their contemporaries as to the nature of the Kingdom? After all, Jesus had just spent 40 days teaching them about the kingdom.
Now I concede that during his earthly ministry the disciples did not fully understand the significance of all they heared and saw (the gospel writers admit this and explain it as being due to the fact that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given). But this 40 days of teaching on the kingdom was after John 20 when Jesus breathed on them and said, “receive the Holy Spirit.” Admittedly this was still pre-Pentecost, but it was post-regeneration. If this 40-day period was not the time that the disciples came to an understanding of the true nature of the Kingdom, then when did they? Was it in the instant of Pentecost? If so why did Jesus spend the time teaching them? Peter seems to have a pretty good grasp of the nature of God’s kingdom purpose very soon into the pentecostal era in Acts 3, so clearly it was not an idea that slowly evolved - here it is, fully formed.
It seems to me that with a proper understanding of the Kingdom, the question, “Will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel” was a valid one for the disciples to ask. And Jesus didn’t answer “No” - in fact he answered a different question - “How” - “you will receive power…”
April 25th, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
I just want to clarify a question that I posted above. I got a little carried away and wasn’t clear; I did NOT mean to suggest or imply that the Church as an institution should be an agent of the civil government. Instead of writing, “If the Church does not exemplify a legal or organization model, then how is the Church leading?”, I should have wrote: “If the people who make-up the Church do not have a clear understanding of how the legal system or society should be organized, then how can Christians expect people to follow their example when they work as legislators, lobbyist, company owners, journalist, etc.? Honestly, it was a poorly worded duplication of my previous question.
On that point, I’m encouraged by the healthy discussion on this topic and challenged to continually look to scripture for understanding.
April 26th, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Ah yes Ruth, to Scripture we should go … When asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied: “The kingdom of God does not come in an observable manner, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:20-21 Of course he also described the future Kingdom, Matt 7:21-23; Matt 8:11-12; Matt 19:28; Matt 25:31-34 so for Jesus the full and final manifestation of the kingdom lay in the future. So, in one sense the kingom of God has come, in another sense it is yet to come. Jesus distinguishes by speaking of the Kingdom’s arrival first in grace and later in judgement with cataclysmic power and great glory. The ‘Kingdom of heaven’ parables such as those in Matt 13 also show that the kingdom of heaven has come to men not as a new world order but like a mustard seed or leaven in the dough. The wheat and tares grow together until the final ushering in of the Kingdom of power.
I agree with much of what Peter has said already about reducing the idea of Kingdom to an individualistic and weak spiritual view but I am also cautious about trying to see it worked out in earthly, social terms. The Church will have an influence on society but I suggest that the Kingdom of grace will expand in the hearts and lives of men and women and will not be an earthly kingdom until the Day of the Lord is ushered in.
April 27th, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
Ruth,
I am finally getting back to your original questions and to your amendment. To the first part of your question, I would quote Paul:
“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law(though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.” (1 Cor.9:20-21)
Paul clearly no longer conisdered himself under the law (the reference to the Jews indicates he is talking of the Law of Moses)and yet he is under God’s law or the law of Christ. The Law of Moses did foreshadow the law written on the heart - the law of Christ, that which is performed as the expression of faith through love, by a new creation - but it is not the same thing and only had a temporary function - to lead people to Christ by showing them their guilt and sinfulness.
In respect the legal system of society, I do not feel that there is a a fixed, definite ‘Christian system.’ We engage in the democratic process, often finding finding common ground with unbelievers, because of common grace, and we seek to ensure that general principles and values - e.g. justice, compassion, good order etc. - are represented. Where there is a conflict with humanism or other worldviews, then we argue our case in the public square, we pray and we exemplify the values of the Kingdom in the church. Neither Jesus or Paul give us a model for directly trying to apply a fixed Christian system of ethics on to the civil authorities.
April 27th, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
[…] Having made my point about the general way in which the Kingdom influences society, I have been challenged about what happens when it comes to the ethcial values that determine social policy and legislation in a society. Particularly, Doug rightly points out that it is not a question of whether morality will be imposed, but whose morality will be imposed. If I argue that the Church will ultimately be the biggest influence in the world, won’t that mean that Christian laws will be adopted (if only because Christians in a democratic society will vote them in!)? […]
April 28th, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
I share John’s extremely healthy caution about trying to see kingdom “worked out in earthly, social terms”. The track record is not great and the current trends are ominous!! Nonetheless, having continued to follow the thread of this debate through into Trevor’s last couple of blogs & comments, I have an unrequited nagging that this “working out in earthly social terms” of kingdom/church influence in the world is essential for us to grapple with beyond the Wesley/Wilberforce “amazing individuals” level (and beyond our influence at the ballot box). That is to say at a level which engages seriously with our corporate/organizational/(dare I say institutional?) nature as church and engages seriously with the possible notion of a “christian majority in a democratic society”. This plays into issues surrounding what it means to be a “holy people” whilst avoiding tribalism and also the effects of our internal (properly non-democratic) governance on our external relations in a democracy (e.g. how may restoring apostolic authority result in our behaving differently at an organizational level in the world once grown to the scale of the Roman Catholic church or C of E than they have done/do?). Peter
April 28th, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Peter,
Whilst agreeing with you that there will be a corporate influence (city on a hill) and not just individual influence (salt of the earth), I would want to give a strong warning against religious institutionalism of any kind. Whenever a true expression of the church (a living, spiritual, organic community) fossilises and hardens into a religious insititution, it ceases to be prophetic and influential in eternal terms (though its temporal influence may significantly increase as it gains a kind of respectability) - witness the pathetic ineffectiveness and irrelevance of the C. of E. as an institution (though not necessarily individuals within it). The church must maintain its identity as a spiritual community (by this I don’t mean ethereal, otherworldly or wishy-washy, but ‘born of and led by the Spirit’). I do not see the work of God in restoring apostles as leading to the emergence of another institution (like the RC or C.of E. - God forbid!) but as to a number of various ‘tribes’ - familes of churches and ministries - across the globe working together relationally (not denominationally) and one in Spirit with all God’s people. Over time, God will cause all the various ‘tribes’ among his people to have an increasing unity of vision, mind, heart and purpose that will see his Kingdom come in greater measure and will herald the return of Jesus.
Thank you for your contributions
Trevor
April 28th, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Thanks Trevor,
My remaining nagging question is well and truly requited now! Amen to a relationally expanding, non-institutionalised “Kingdom Come”. Thanks for providing a forum to have thought this issue through “aloud”.
Peter