I was recently prompted to think about whether a christian should obey the exact letter of the law of his earthly government or the spirit behind the written letter of those laws. The occasions that caused me think of this were instances when I took our dog for a walk around a jogging path. The exact wording of the law here in Kirksville is approximately that animals shall be restrained at all times within city limits. In a much earlier conversation with another christian lady I know I was given the opinion that to release a dog from a leash at anytime (outside a fenced yard) was a violation of this law which not only broke the city ordinance and caused a bad testimony, but also effectively broke the law of God.
Here is the question though, is that the correct viewpoint? Her belief is certainly a courageous one to have and it requires a very high devotion in terms of having a different lifestyle than the world. But, I am not certain that is what Jesus came to set up in his future church. Certainly, a radical lifestyle is to be pursued in regards to holiness and devotion to God.
Could it be though that God values more highly the attitude in the heart, that is one which seeks the good of all and seeks to obey any or all goodness of the written law? 2 Corinthains 3:6 states that the letter of the law kills but the Spirit gives life. Trying to obey the exact written code of every federal, state, and local municipality in one's life is a certain way to "die" in a sense. How about fulfilling the greatest commandment of all? Loving God with all you are, and loving your neighbor as yourself is actually a much greater thing.
Consider my example then. Suppose I take our dog for a walk and when the dog and I have gone into a secluded area outside of neighborhoods, I let the dog off the leash in order to let her run around, chase some rabbits, and get better exercise. The dog is better served and enjoys a higher quality of life. I feel better about the situation. And the essential desire behind the written Kirksville code is fulfilled. No one's private property is destroyed, no one's pets are harassed, no one feels threatened by our dog. And should a situation come up where the dog needs to be stationary, I can call her and she comes on command.
For some people, this obeying of the spirit of the law is not a feasible solution. Perhaps they own a wild or feckless dog that chases little children and knocks things over. Perhaps they don't live anywhere near a large wooded area. Perhaps their dog won't come when called. All these conditions add up to mean a different response from a person in those situations.
What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
good thoughts. Look at the Pharisees...they were teachers of the law, made sure everyone abided by the law to the tee, and it seems to me that Jesus was never very happy with them because they were so concerned about following the "LAW" that they missed the point. Just like Jesus healing on the Sabbath or the adulterous woman story. The LAW stated she should die for her sins, but Jesus brings a new law.
i also agree that it is different for each individual in the way that you discussed, such as someone having a crazy dog that would run off vs an obedient dog that stays around and listens.
i think when you say you have to follow every single law written for your city, state, country, whatever, you become legalistic and focus more on the actions and not at all on the motivations. Seriously, some cities, i'm sure even kville, have some ridiculous laws, like you can't blow dry your hair after 6pm or you can't have more than 8 girls in house over night or you are considered a brothel...guess that leaves out slumber parties eh?
plus, i really hope that's not the case cuz i just spent the whole last week speeding around between jeff city, columbia, kville, and KC.
Yeah...
Now what if someone pointed to the passage in Corinthians where the christian was invited over to the unbeliever's house for dinner and were told they were having meat sacrificed to idols for supper? The next part of the verse says that the christian should not eat the meat for the sake of the non-believer because it would be perceived as wrong. I have had some friends insinuate to me that this means breaking the actual written law will result in the same thing seen in this passage. What do you think about that?
well i think that passage addresses not following the Law so to speak. When looking at it, the verse actually says to eat whatever is before you, without raising questions BUT if they tell you it has been offered in sacrifice, then don't eat it, for the sake of the other man's conscious, not yours. The whole, "not yours" part i think is pretty key. He's not saying to not eat it becasue the law says it's wrong but not to eat it because the other guy might be confused, thinking you condone or even particpate in the worship of idols. So i think this is more similar to a situation where you are out with a bunch of people and you know one of your friends is an alcoholic. you could choose to have a drink or two, knowing it would not be wrong, but also knowing if you order a drink, your friend will probably order a drink and then some, thus causing them to stumble. I think that is what the essence of this passage is about, not the law. It even goes on to say, whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God...and then on to say do not cause anyone to stumble.
i guess it seems to me that the passage doesn't say"ask what kind of meat it is and then if it's sacrificial meat, RUN AWAY!" it says to eat it regardless unless the person happens to mention it. I guess i think if it was meant to tell you to adhere strictly to the law, it would say to check it out first, make sure it's not sacrificial meat, not eat it unless THEY mention something about it being sacrificial meat. idon't know if that makes any sense
Post a Comment