"Issues" as a term is a little played out, but not to Christians. We got issues. Heaven and Hell ones, that is.
I was thinking about the concept of "Heaven and Hell issues" today when I finally quit playing and decided to heed my pastor's wife's call for me to join the church choir. Of course, there's the obligatory "commitment form." Y'all know what I'm talking about. Let me be clear, I have 100% no problem with signing a commitment form. I think it's a good idea. People need to be held accountable, they need to be aware of expectations, and they need to be in one accord with the teachings of a particular church if they are committing themselves to serving at that church, especially in such a public manner.
But I couldn't help but inwardly smile when she assured me that she doesn't feel these are all "Heaven and Hell issues." In other words, "I don't think everyone has to do all of these things to get to Heaven." I know, sister, I know. I got you.
But like I said, it got me to thinking. It got me to thinking about why we even feel the need to delineate things as Heaven or Hell issues or not in the first place.
I thought of this amazing analogy. Okay, we have (we're supposed to have) a relationship with God, right? Okay, so what if you got married (maybe you already are, so this analogy will be even more powerful) and your man was like, "Hey, sweetheart, would you divorce me if I left the toilet seat up?" And then you'd laugh, and say, "No, honey, how ridiculous! I love you. Why would you even ask that?" And then the next day he was like, "Hey, babe, would you divorce me if I left my clothes in a pile on the floor?" And you'd be like, "No, sweetie! I would never divorce you over something that insignificant." And what if the next day he asked, "Honey, would you divorce me if I forgot your birthday, our anniversary, and didn't get you anything for Valentine's Day?" Now, you're starting to get a little worried. This time you'd reply, "Baby, I don't think any of those things are bad enough to want to get a divorce over. I could see if you cheated on me or abused me or did something else that broke our marriage vows, but . . . I don't understand. Why do you want to know what it would take for me to divorce you?" And what if he answered, "Because I love you, and I don't want to lose you, so I don't want to do whatever it is that would make you want to get a divorce." And then you get really worried, because you realize how backwards that sounds. You get a little defensive and reply, "Well, if you loved me, then why wouldn't you want to know what it would take for me to want to stay with you? To want to be with you all the time? Why wouldn't you want to know what it is that would make me happy? What you could do to please me? What you could do that would bring us closer?"
Imagine that. If you had a husband who said he loved you, but really only cared about not doing anything that would make you want a divorce. I mean, what? He's not doing anything wrong. He's not breaking your wedding vows. He's not neglecting you or abusing you or cheating on you or anything. So, what's the problem?
I think that sometimes Christians are the husband in this analogy and the wife is God. It's not exact, of course, and I know it's kind of crazy since God is always described in masculine terms, but I think it fits in this case.
All the "standards" I uphold are not salvific. I get it. But if you tell me that how I live my life doesn't matter, I respectfully disagree. What "matters"? That me and God are cool as long as I'm not violating his Word?
There is nothing I can do, in my human ability, to make God love me more. There is nothing I can do, in my humanity, to earn His grace. That's why it's called grace. Because it's given to someone undeserving of it; it's bestowed upon someone without them having earned it. But that doesn't mean that setting myself apart for His glory by my appearance, activities and behavior is therefore deemed irrelevant. If our commitment to Him is based on "Heaven or Hell issues," I think we need to reevaluate what it means to be in a relationship with Him.
8 comments:
If you don't mind, I'm going to print this out and use it in my Young Adults' class. We have been starting to cover standards, and I have been dealing specifically with the attitudes and relationships first. I think your post puts it in perspective!
Don't mind at all. :-) Glad you can use what I've written!
I understand what you're saying, and to a degree, I agree. Our approach to God IS all about relationship, access we've gained through Jesus Christ and enabled by the Holy Spirit. I have to make a point though, because it seems like you're saying that while UPC standards aren't required for salvation, God would prefer them.... And I sort of take issue with that.
What makes my relationship with God so amazing is the fact that I've been saved by grace - as you said. I'm a filthy, nasty, horrible sinner who rebels against Him in my heart, mind, and actions. There's nothing good about me - I'm totally depraved and completely fallen. Even my best actions are filth to a perfect God - I have no righteousness of my own. But, by Jesus, I am made into HIS righteousness. This is an important point. "God made him who knew no sin to become sin so that we might become the righteousness of God."
My own righteousness is like a filthy, used-up tampon. Not only is it ceremonially unclean, but it's worthless - to be discarded and never used again. My response to the grace I receive and righteousness I have become isnt to turn around and become holy in my life - I've been made holy! I'm not saying that this is a justification to sin - by no means! But what I am saying that anything I try to add to the righteousness I have become cheapens that righteousness. If we try to perfect ourselves more beyond what God has already done in our lives, we are actually regressing, replacing Gods righteousness with self-righteousness, the law, and death.
We are Gods workmanship - literally, his trophies. We are his bragging rights, his testimony to the world. He's showing us off as his best work - we're his pride and joy. I have a new son, and he is indeed my pride and joy. I love him beyond anything I have ever known, and I never cease to tell people about how wonderful he is. Lincoln doesn't have to do anything to earn that or to make me proud - I love him simply because he is my child, my boy, my beautiful, smart, brilliant, handsome, winsome child. And nothing can change that. I couldn't possibly love him anymore, and I'll never love him any less.
Now, to continue that metaphor, there are things he can do that can upset me, or disappoint me, or that require that I discipline him. Right now, he loves to throw his cup on the floor at dinner and get someone to pick it up. We tell him no, and he looks us in the eye, then drops it. So I have to spank him (lightly, two firm swats on his leg), the I hold him, reassure him, and tell him I love him. Because i do. I only correct him because I love him. But he doesn't have to earn my love - he already has it.
The church is collectively the bride - our personal relationships with God are best compared to a father/child. And that changes the whole relationship picture.
If you have a conviction that god has given you over standards, then by all means, follow them. James 4:17 says that best. But there are plenty of standards that have zero biblical basis, and following them (or not following them) will have absolutely no bearing on your standing or relationship with God. It's about his Lordship, your relationship with Abba-Daddy, not about doing more to make Him love you more. He already loves you so much that He died on a cross for you.
Hey, b,
I'm pretty sure we're on the same page on this. I made sure to indicate that doing more to earn God's love or grace is unbiblical.
The analogy I used was to illustrate motive and attitude when it comes to serving God and having a relationship with him. I also used it because the whole marriage thing is something I think about more often than not. Lol. Agreed that father/child is the best analogy that describes our relationship with Him on an individual basis.
I will also admit that, in addition to reevaluating the whole "heaven or hell issue" idea, this post was somewhat a defense of my own lifestyle choices. Just because something is not necessary to "get on God's good side" as it were (since we both agree that is a fallacious idea), doesn't mean that it is irrelevant, unimportant or unrelated to my service to Him.
Chantell,
I want to be clear - you're the self-righteous type, so I'm in no way accusing you of anything. You're a smart, humble, charming woman, so I'm making a comment, not being accusatory.
That said, I think it's important to acknowledge that lifestyle convictions (standards, if you will) can either help or hinder the relationship with God. A proper standard only works if it keeps the Christian from sin. The standard isn't righteousness unto itself, and there is no redemptive, salvific, or regenerative effect from maintaining certain behaviors or a particular dress code. And when standards or personal disciplines become a measure of achievement or an end to righteousness, it becomes idolatry, and cheapens the grace of god and the work of Christ. There are some who make standards equal to holiness. Holiness isn't a measure of behaviors or dress codes or a list of what you do or don't do, but an inward condition. We're not holy by what we do - we are made holy by god.
Amen, brother. :-)
I meant to say - you're NOT the self-righteous type. Sorries.
All good, bro. I figured as much when you went on to say that I was "smart, humble and charming." :-)
Post a Comment