Uniformity vs The Work of the Spirit

As you read Deuteronomy you can't help thinking that God is calling for both absolute unity and uniformity in worship. The people are to come to the place God will choose for their sacrifices rather than any old high place. They are to interact with the Levitical priests who will perform the key worship elements on their behalf. It is all to be tightly regulated.

Compared to the time in which we now live, this seems rather strange. Jesus commissioned his disciples (us) to scatter outwards, leading people to Jesus (and thus worship) wherever they went. Movement organisations flourish when disciples make disciples wherever they are, birthing diverse networks of micro-churches that have different expressions, a multitude of practices, and probably variations in their precise theologies.

Has God somehow changed between the time of Deuteronomy and the time of Jesus onwards? Has He changed His mind, or come up with a fresh plan B? How do we reconcile what appears to be exact opposites?

Of course Deuteronomy is concerned with the formation of the people Israel, whereas with Jesus it is the global Kingdom. The first might be characterised by law, whereas the second is characterised by grace ... but these understandings, though valid, still leave us with questions about the nature of God then compared to now.

It seems to me a key difference that helps explain is the giving of the Spirit. Back in the time of Deuteronomy the Spirit was active, but seemed to be on specific people (and perhaps also for specific purposes). The cosmic disruption of Jesus opened the way for the liberal outpouring of the Spirit. That outpouring enables a multitude of individual believers to know directly what God requires (see Jeremiah 31:31 - 34).

Without the outpouring of the Spirit a high degree of human-system-control is required - keeping everyone on track, avoiding wandering off back into false belief. The restrictions of one central place, Levitical procedures etc. effect all this. With the outpouring of the Spirit a wide variety of individuals (and small groups) can be led and remain in the Godly (Jesus) Way without requiring such systems ... if people grow in direct obedience to Jesus, i.e. to the leading of the out-poured Spirit. A variety and diversity is now possible, because the unity lies in obedience to Christ.

In such conditions the need for law evaporates, since Godly order is now being restored (akin to before the Fall). Grace was always there at the beginning, but Law was temporarily necessary for such a large social system (i.e. a nation of people). Now with the Spirit, the social system can multiply and diversify infinitely as long as unity of the Spirit is maintained, i.e. people living in obedience and operating in the work of the Spirit.

God did not change through any of this. He remains the same yesterday, today and for ever. The era has changed (pre- Spirit pouring / Spirit now liberally flowing). The event of Jesus made the change of era possible.

Liberation

... you have shattered the yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor ...

We can hear words like these from Isaiah chapter 9 perhaps in a Christmas carol service, with everything orderly, good singing, nice atmosphere and so on. And yet hearing it in this way might miss the raw exuberance and jubilation that is felt when a yoke is truly shattered, the weighty bar at last removed, and the harsh rod of an oppressor is finally broken leaving the people free after years of struggle.

The recent scenes in Syria have been of mass jubilation among a diverse population celebrating a freedom after decades of cruel oppression. The leaders behind the liberation even made a proclamation, calling for a special time of celebration for all, to declare the newly achieved liberty.

Perhaps it is those kind of scenes, the overflow of emotion, the visceral mix of both tears and joy, that we would do well to have in mind when reading the classic Christmas readings such as Isaiah 9.

With the birth of a new King - with Jesus - years of oppression, struggle, and harsh regime will come to an end truly setting people free. The future will be theirs, to reform and rebuild a new life with the possibility of flourishing for all. So get out and celebrate - let all the emotion come out, take to the streets!!

Jesus sets us free from a tyrannical regime that keeps each person enslaved, locked in patterns that de-humanise both themselves and those around them. A regime that you cannot negotiate or buy your way out of. One that will strike no bargain, and will demand total allegiance. From this you are now set free!

Watch the recent scenes in Syria, and then listen to the Christmas readings again ...!

Don't take the King out of Kingdom

Nowadays many Christians have a healthy 'Kingdom mentality'. This is good news: typically leading to better to better practices. For example greater respect and cooperation between churches and their leaders (we are all working together for His Kingdom); and also seeing positive community work by other organisations (perhaps secular or not Christian faith-based) as contributing to a healthy community rather than somehow a kind of enemy. The outcomes of the work by another organisation can be understood as positive or 'Kingdom-esque' when they resonate with the Kingdom outcomes we would hope for in an area or community.

There is still a tension however, that we need to keep in mind. Jesus is Lord of the areas and ultimately over all people groups, therefore including those we work alongside - the resurrection puts that beyond doubt. Yet that Lordship yearns for and invites a response from each and every individual - that they may recognise Christ as King. In the Christmas story the learned travellers present their gifts and worship Jesus whilst he is still a baby ... how much more a response is due now he is risen Lord!

The bottom line is that a Kingdom needs a King (there is a clue in the word!), and that King rightly should be recognised as such deep in each and every heart. The great rebellion depicted in Genesis 3 is about people choosing to be self-kings, which trends in the opposite direction to God's loving order for creation.

So whilst we can definitely affirm friends and colleagues working positively for the community - each helping to outcomes that we would recognise as being Jesus Kingdom attributes - we still want to work out how best we can point individuals to Jesus as The King who has a Kingdom that will always transform these good outcomes to even greater levels, not resting until transformation into God's original desire is complete. For sure we can affirm people and the good work being done, but that cannot mean surrendering our belief that Jesus is Lord and thus taking the 'King' out of 'Kingdom'.

It is up to us to maintain our witness to Jesus as King even as we work together and collaborate ... all the while in the hope that others discover Him too and make Him their Lord and King.

My Life is not Mine to have Absolute Rights Over

With a house of commons debate and vote scheduled, 'Assisted Dying' is very much a current topic of news and discussion. A key theme that comes through the arguments in favour of changing the law (i.e. to allow circumstances for assisted dying) is an individual's 'Right to Choose'. Above all the arguments in favour or against, this assertion of 'Right to Choose' is very important for us to understand from a mission perspective.

The problem with this 'Right', alongside the many other 'Rights' (or 'Human Rights') that we assert or talk about in contemporary society, is the implicit assumption that we should have them without any consideration of why we should have them. Where do these rights actually come from? What is their basis?

That is not to say that we humans don't or should not have any rights ... but from a Christian perspective we need to think more deeply of their basis. The right to change religion, for example, can be traced (with a Christian perspective) to God giving people free-will.

Some rights should come about because 'world society' (i.e. nations agreeing collectively) agrees that each individual should be accorded that right. In other words some rights are humans conferring them on each other ... agreeing that life (& society) is better for all if we all try and respect such rights. The rights of refugees are an example of this.

The problem with the 'Right to Choose' concerning one's death, is that from a Christian perspective (and likely various other faith perspectives) the life of each individual is a gift of God, along with a sense that the 'on-earth' beginning point is up to God, and the corresponding end-point is also up to God. If a life 'is taken' by actions of others, an accounting of their actions is required of them (e.g. see Genesis 4 Cain & Abel). This means that in a Christian understanding, my life is not mine to have absolute rights over, but is instead given to me by God, with the timing of that gift best left to God's hands.

The push to assert a 'Right to Choose' is part of the relentless cultural trend of individualism: each individual is a person with rights of their own without any external claims. In that sense it is the natural outworking of secularism: 'I feel ... therefore I am', without need for reference to God. Put another way, it is another resonance with the assertion made in Genesis 3: 'I can grab this on my own - I don't need God'.

Christians in mission will want to counter this cultural trend, but that needs to be done compassionately. It is no use saying "You do not have such a right - tough luck"! Person by person, individual by individual, we would want to lovingly encourage them to see that life is a gift, even when things go wrong (be it medically or by tragedy). That life-gift sits in a context that is way bigger than any one of us, and so there is a call to lift our eyes to a greater perspective - through which we might be able to see our circumstances differently.

The life-gift from God implies certain rights, and as people living this life-gift together we can (and should) collectively confer rights on each other ... but all in the context of life-gift from God, and therefore each understanding (and accepting the understanding) that our own life is not ours to have absolute rights over.