The Right Kind of Rose: The Roofless House

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

The Roofless House

If you scroll down my blog page and take a look over to the right side you will note that I have linked some one who has entitled themselves "religious right". I have done this for two reasons: first, to prove to everyone out there that I am not the most right-wing, conservative, Republican out there; two, to actually make a point through this piece. If you wish, take a break from reading this piece, visit his site, then come back and finish this piece- you will better appreciate it.

Religous Right

Come on- I even linked him here for you;)

Welcome back. For those of you who did not take me up on my offer, you should, but, to make a long story short, this particular individual thinks that the GOP is God's party, that all abortionists should be killed, and that all Old Testament Law is still, very much, still in effect. Why? Because of the verse where Christ states that not the least stroke of the pen would be negated because of His teachings and such. Therefore, we should not eat pork, shave our beards, wear mixed fabrics, meet on Sundays, get ear piercing, tattoos, drink alcohol (he equates all drinking with drunkenness) and all of the rest of the 3,700 odd laws laid out by the religious elders.

Out of perverse curiosity I wrote to the author and asked if he believed that Muslims would go to heaven since they obey the law but deny Christ sacrifice and resurrection- he stated that due to their obedience of the law and fear of God they would.

While this is all terribly interesting many of you are wondering what my point is. My point is that this author and others like him (some Christians) have missed entirely the point of legalism and of the Law. Allow me to steal an example from a friend and mentor of mine, Clark. Life is a lot like being in the midst of a storm in which rain is pelting you (rain drops being problems). If you subscribe only to legalism and the Law that is fine, they will protect from some types of drops and protect you well from those types of drops but they let many others through. However, if we view the Law biblically (Pauline epistles) then the Law becomes our teacher with which we build an umbrella. It is the concept not the rule itself that is the point.

Some of you disagree, don't you? I can hear you mumbling and plotting your responses from my terminal. Think about it though. This is precisely what Christ taught. Go to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5, 6, 7). Here Jesus says repeatedly, "You have heard it said... but I say to you...". What adultery really means is not lusting, what stealing really is, covetousness, etc. This was the fulfillment of the law. Before it was simply pillars with no ceiling- the pillars blocked a little bit of the rain but when we see what holds them up then we see the true intent of the pillars- not to block the rain but to support the roof.

As Christians we should look to the Old Testament as just that, a testament to what God did in and through a certain group of people in a certain place. Yet the end story is not about that group of people or the laws God gave them but the fulfillment of His plan through His Son's sacrifice. To accept Christ's mission but ignore His purpose is to accept eternal life without ever knowing how to live this one.

My question to my legalistic, Law-abiding friends is this: have you thrown out the roof to seek cover under the pillars?

*I am not/was not attempting to provide an ad hominem, vitriolic diatribe against the site I linked but simple provide an example of the dangers of thinking that way*

posted by D.M. @ 1:24 PM

5 Comments:

At 4/18/2006, Keith Drury said…

One thing I give gopchristian credit for--he takes his beliefs to their (il)logical end. Jeepers, this guy makes you look like a flaming liberal! ;-)
coach D
At 4/19/2006, Anonymous said…

Well it is good to have you back. I think the pillar/umbrella analogy is a great word picture. I have noticed the "pillar" problem is not just one with the law and Christ fullfillment of it. It applies elsewhere; one area that has left me baffled is the willingness to apply the same kind of thinking to spiritual gifts, healing or miracles. Although not a full charismatic christian, I wonder how theologians can pick and choose which gifts they are comfortable with-pillars one through three and which they are not-pillars 4-6. Feel free to place your favorite and least favorite gifts at whatever position you theologically favor.
The same with miracles, which seems to flow from ones experience or typically lack of experience. Pillar theology is our attempt to fit the Word into our personal beliefs and expereinces. Pastor Bill
At 4/19/2006, Mike Cline said…

I checked your comments just to see if religiousright would post. Thank you for that, you truly are religious. The "right" part, eh, I'm not buying it. But I appreciate your thoughts.

Devin,

Thanks for adding me to the side, I feel privileged. I imagine once I get out of IWU I will do even more blogging to keep the mind sharp and to connect to everyone. For some odd reason, I cannot post who I read on my blog. My template is screwy, or else I would. And yes, you are right, we will probably not agree on many things (politically/theologically perhaps even), but your understanding of the Word of God is very good (not that you need my approval), and I'm sure we'll find a connection there.
At 4/20/2006, D.M. said…

Just a thought to the Religous Right: you use a great deal of ad hominem arguments and mud-slinging (i.e. the use of fag and other vitriol pepper your langauge). Doesn't the Word say something about using your mouth only for what is edifying?.... could've sworn it did...hmmmm.
At 4/27/2006, Ben Robinson said…

Devin,

I stumbled across this guy's site as well and was stunned. I'm still not completely convinced that he's sincere. There are aspects about it that make me think it's a satire taken way too far. But there are other times where he does seem sincere and those are the times that scare me.

About Me

Previous Posts