change?

Posted: 11th August 2010 by Mac in Ecclesiology, Ramblings

Went for a short walk with an important friend this evening and along the way we found ourselves, as is usual, discussing the church; not the church universal, but the local church we serve. As we were speaking, he listed a number of ministries that were growing, even flourishing as the church in general is stagnating at best, or even moving backward.  As he described each of the ministries, I realized they all had some things in common, so I asked him if he recognized the commonalities.

He thought for a moment, and as I usually do, not being able to wait, I blurted out the answer, “There are two things in common across all of these ministries. First, each of them is filled with people almost all of whom are under the age of 30. Second, none of these groups is encumbered with a history with traditions.”

He immediately agreed with the first, but was unsure about what I meant about traditions, so I explained, “when I say they don’t have a history with traditions, I generally mean that they don’t come to the church with a preconceived notion of what the church should look like and how the church should act based upon how they have seen other churches do things.” After explaining, he stated that he basically agreed.

Now, I believe these common traits among these flourishing ministries are important for one very basic reason. The age and the lack of a history with traditions makes them more willing to accept change. Yep, I said it, change. For some reason we (being either those who grew up in the church and/or people over 35) have a serious and ministry hindering aversion to change.  We dislike it. In fact, I would argue that we bow up against it like a tom cat cornered by a dog.

Change by itself is not necessarily good.  God by definition does not change. His character is the antithesis of change.  However, we (individual nor corporately) are God.  We do see God use change for positive ends.  Christ became something which He was not before when he became flesh (John 1:14), so in a manner of speaking He changed. Therefore, change is not necessarily bad either.

The issue is not necessarily the change, but the purpose for the change.  By definition, nothing can grow without change.  Whether that growth is deeper, or taller, or wider, or any other-er, to grow is to change.  Unfortunately, we too often insist that growth can or must occur apart from change because change is uncomfortable. It is inconvenient. It is painful.  No argument from me there.  Read about what Christ gave up to come to earth in the form of man and we see that change can be all of these things.  However, change is  often necessary.

Obviously we should not change for change’s sake. BUT, why do we refuse to change for Christ’s sake?  We should evaluate and determine when and how to change. We hold onto tradition and endure the uncomfortable task of defending the traditions we have turned into sacred cows. Instead, we should be considering whether those sacred cows should be sacrificed on the altar.  We need to be able to put everything on the alter, holding nothing back. Nothing is exempt from potential change. Why? So that we become more effective and efficient in making disciples, for God’s glory, not our comfort. What cow’s do you need to sacrifice? Are you willing to lay it all on the alter?

Liberty or Freedom

Posted: 1st July 2010 by Mac in Ramblings

Recently, I was asked by my Father-in-law my thoughts on the questions, “Why was “liberty” used in the preamble of the Constitution instead of “freedom”? and why is freedom used only 2 times in the NT and liberty used about 13? Does the difference have anything to with limits?”  After several days of research, let me sum up what I have found:

There are numerous words which are translated as liberty or freedom in both the Old and New Testaments.  There is not one word, in either Hebrew or Greek, which is solely translated as just liberty or just freedom. Even if we look at how the various translations use the words, there seems to be little to no consistency with how the words are translated.  In many cases, the actual meaning of the Greek or Hebrew words is a wide area, reduced confinement, right, authority or something similar; the idea of freedom or liberty in their meanings is derived.  There are just a few primary words (ἐλευθερίᾳ – freedom or liberty; דְּרוֹר – liberty or purity; חֻפְשָׁה – Liberty from slavery or freedom), which actually mean liberty or freedom; and, their tanslation from the original language into the English has no consistency as to whether liberty or freedom is used. So this begs the question, is there a difference in the meanings of the english words liberty and freedom?

Merriam-Webster defines freedom as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. Liberty is defined as freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.  Based upon this, there is a substantive difference between freedom and liberty and it is defined by a specific limit.   That limit is imposed as the line of arbitrariness or despotism with liberty.  This limit does not seem to exist with the definition of freedom. So, freedom seems to be the absence of any external control over the individual (and his free will), whereas liberty seems to be only the absence of arbitrary or despotic control over the same. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the mere fact that it is a document outlining governmental control over the people (and other states), would seem to necesitate the use of liberty and NOT freedom. It makes perfect sense that the framers would seems to want to limit the level of control by government and keep it from being arbitrary or despotic, while still allowing for some form of just control.  However, the Constitution is not scripture and only holds sway over the believer in so far as it is in concert with God’s will and character. So, what does scriture say about a believer’s life? Is ther a limited control which is espoused, or no control at all?

While there are obviously many examples from scripture of submission to authority, perhaps the most directly impactful is 1 Peter 2:13-17.

English Standard Version

13Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

 King James Version

13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Regardless of translation, there is a command which begins this passage – Submit (be subject).  Above all else, while there is absolute freedom in Christ, the christian realizes that freedom is to be willingly surrendered for liberty, and the recognition of authority to which he submits himself. In this passage, Peter instructs the believer to be subject to every human institution/ordinance.  In the Greek, this literally means every created thing, all of creation (κτίσις).  As Chrsitians, we are subject to all; we are to be lowest and last, even submitting to government authority (regardless of its injustice or arbitrariness). We see that this is for God’s sake and not our own, for ultimately, in submitting to these lesser authorities, we will be justified not by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness of God; thereby, silencing those who are foolish (i.e. non-believers cf.Ps. 14:1; 53:1). So where then is Christian liberty?

Liberty exists, according to the New Testament, not in self-determination or self-control but in the attoning act of Christ which liberates man from the arbitrary and despotic rule of sin (rom. 6:18-23; Jn. 8:31-36), from the Law (Rom. 7:3ff; 8:2; Gal. 2:4; 4:21-31; 5:1, 13) and from death  (rom. 6:21ff; 8:21). It is to liberty which Christ has made us free (Gal.5:1). Liberty in Christ then is not to be found in the manifestation of perfect self-control, but in a life radically sacrificed for others. Ultimately, none of this comes through surrender to man or his institutions, but through surrender to the only perfectly un-arbitrary and perfectly just authority of God in Christ Jesus.  The limit of liberty comes perfectly in a surrendered life that gives all glory to God at the expense of freedom in ourselves and results in discipleship of others.

Is there a substantive difference between freedom and liberty? absolutely. Does it matter which word was used in the Constitution? Not insofar as, Christians should not be looking to human institutions for freedom, but to Christ for liberty.