Today at church we had 3 questions from The Heidelburg Catechism. Question 55 says, "What do you understand by 'the communion of saints'?" As usual with historic doctrinal treatise, the initial statement is quite good and meaningful. In this case the answer is "first, that all and everyone, who believes, being members of Christ, are in common, partakers of him, and of all his riches and gifts." That's pretty good, that's something appealing, something I could want to be a part of. This makes me feel really special. But. like theologians have often done (such as expanding the meaning of sanctification), they MUST have a second statement that tells us what we should do in response (obligation of the believer). In this case the answer continues, "secondly, that everyone must know it to be his duty, readily and cheerfully to employ his gifts , for the advantage and salvation of other members."
My questions continue to be, "why are pastors, especially those in high standing with the public, offended when they are challenged about the aspect of "duty" in the Christian life?" and "why must the authors of Christian doctrine use the words 'responsibility', 'duty', and 'obligation' way more often than other word options that are more representative of the Gospel?" Most sound pastors can nuance this issue, but almost all parishioners CANNOT. What did Jesus say and other authors of the New Testament want us to know about Kingdom life? What words would be much more accurate and encouraging to Christians about our response to God's actions on our behalf?
Try
"privilege"
"pleasure"
"response of thanksgiving"
"natural response of adoration"
"act of praise"
Any of these words would be more Biblical and more encouraging to Christians than duty, responsibility, or obligation. I am not sure why this issue is so prevalent, but I do know that it is. Test it for yourself. Listen to sermons, read books, social media and you will hear these words way more often as a description of the Christian life. Proxies for duty, obligation and responsibility tend to be "serve" and "give". There is nothing wrong with serving and giving when they are our act of praise from a heart of thanksgiving, but when they are our duty - our obligation to God - they become legalistic, feeding guilt and pride.
What happens is that the natural human condition (carnal mind) admires and applauds obligation and duty. We naturally gravitate to its value. Why? Because human nature is motivated by social exchange, the norm of reciprocity. When we receive something from another, we are obligated to respond in some way that maintains the favor of the one who gave to us. The world says this is a good thing, the person who receives is a dutiful, responsible person when they respond in equilibrium with what they received, While many of us may desire to 'serve our country", often it is referred to as "our duty" and not as "our thankful response."
Because this is the way the world works, institutions in the world are subject to its influence, even the Church. While Social Exchange and its companion, obligation, are necessary to function in this world, when we take that to our relationship with God, we see God as a giver who demands returned favor. BUT this is not the Gospel of Grace, it demands no return for the relationship to remain in favor with the giver.
This is what it means to be in the world but not of the world. That we can operate in exchange as we function within the world's system, but our heart is sold out to God and His redemptive act of the Cross, where we are transformed by His Grace.
Only then can we truly have joy, freedom, hope and significance.
Read about it @ http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=stuck+in+stinkin+thinkin+caldwell
and then you can say "whatever" to DUTY !!
No comments:
Post a Comment