Legalism, Sin and Godliness

Further to a previous post on Socials, Structures and Loving Others, someone alerted me to a post at Matthias Media CHN on legalism. I reproduce it here because there isn't an archive available on site:

Are you a legalist?
8 September 2005 AD

Legalism is a terrible aberration of true Christianity. It leads more to religiosity than a relationship with the true and living God. I was heavily influenced by legalistic teachings while at college. As a result, I constantly doubted my salvation. By the grace of God, however, I have since been brought under faithful Biblical teaching and have been reformed by God's Word.

However, one of the hangovers from my legalistic past has been my response to sin. I was always taught that sin is best dealt with by setting up guidelines, rules and structures in order to purge sin from one's life. One of the most popular examples of this is to seek out an accountability partner. I often wondered, though, if this was really adding another dose of legalism into my life. Surely, if God's law can't bring about the obedience of faith (2 Corinthians 3), how could Bill, John or Ted?

Though I would absolutely reject that I am legalist, I was greatly convicted by Dominic Smart's little article on the matter ("Legalism and its Antidotes" at beginningwithmoses.org). In it, he discusses how legalism still rears its head even in those of us who are thoroughly evangelical. He discusses how our normal responses to sin may actually be a cover-up for the real issue—our passionate love for Christ.

Of course, I am not suggesting that accountability partners should be abandoned. If they are structured correctly and given proper attention, they foster wonderful partnerships in living out the Christian life and are the furthest things from legalism (as Smart implies). But where is it that we put our hope, trust and confidence when it comes to our battle with sin? Human structures are never the final answer. Practical answers are good, but too often they keep us rather than God as the focus.

The real answer seems clichéd but, nonetheless, true. Waging war on sin comes from being truly ensconced in living for the glory of God. There can be no false-piety in that lifestyle. Further, no one can motivate you quite like your loving Lord and Savior.

Smart concludes,"There is nothing like the upwardly-mobile life (a life moving heavenward) to make the legalism of church life clearly apparent and transparently false. It's not real holiness; it never produces the largeness of heart that Christ produces; it has no glory; it gives no delight to the soul; it is so obviously not what you were made for; no-one would have died to save you into that. Live for the glory of God. Therein lies your point and purpose in life; therein lies your true freedom; and therein lies your own true glory."
Noticed by Marty at 12:59 PM

Socials, Structures and Loving Others

A completely mad packed weekend was spent traversing the island at breakneck speed, chalking up thousands of kilometres on the meter, late into the night and early in the morning, under hot sun and heavy rain and being continually fed:

lasagna and meatballs at Da Paolo's Pizzeria and a catch-up

breakfast at Ghim Moh

snacks at Zion















cone in hand, watching Melissa's employee hand-churn ice-cream at The Daily Scoop

barbie, very good salad, cold cuts and a really heavenly pavlova at my cousin's


more food with friends before late night drinks at Liang Seah Street


a full brekkie with a big bowl of coffee and discussion of church ministries...

...and rabid blister-forming foosball thereafter

As we were planning the next social for our DG, we thought about what socials were supposed to achieve and the best places to hold them.

To Keep Focussed
As was noted at this year's Men's Katoomba Conference, the Christian life can be pretty lonely, especially if we try to do a lone ranger. God's word tells us not to neglect meeting together, but to encourage one another to do so (Hebrews 10:24–25) and build one another up (1 Thessalonians 5:11). The primary purpose and goal of small groups (ie. bible study groups, cell groups, discipleship groups, however you want to term the small group) is to encourage its members to grow in Christ (Romans 8: 28-29, Colossians 2:7). Spending time with each other in a small group helps keep us focussed and on track (Proverbs 27:17).

As we live in the world with its social and economic change, job insecurity, redefinition of the family, high divorce rates, increasing suicide, the changing role of men and women etc, we struggle not to be of the world. We need one another to keep on course. We need the encouragement to press on to be God's people. We need to guard ourselves, our spouses, our families and the Gospel.

Small groups should be havens of support and encouragement to Christians in ways that are not possible in larger groups. Small groups provide an opportunity for people to raise personal issues of concern to them, in confidence, if necessary, and for which they need the wisdom of other Christian brothers and sisters and informed prayer.

Discipling one another, as a group or on a one-to-one basis, is greatly facilitated in small groups. They also provide an opportunity for Christians in the group to pray for their non-Christian friends and stimulate their desire and effectiveness in sharing the Gospel with their friends and others.

To Help Others Keep Focussed
But small groups don't just exist so we can get our encouragement or "feeding" there. They are places where we can encourage and meet the needs of others, loving them and doing whatever we can for them to help them keep focussed on Christ and his kingdom, by praying for them (Colossians 4:12-13), by prepping for study so that the discussion is informed and fruitful and biblical, and encouraging them by our mere presence, for it is encouraging that we think God, his word and his people are important enough to us for us to make time for them, no matter how tired and grumpy we are, rain or shine.

Socials are part of being in a small group. Because there is usually only a limited amount of time every week before or after bible study to chat and catch-up, socials are self-imposed dates to meet up and get to know each other better that we may better serve the other.

Structures
Of course, socials are merely structures which we set up to achieve these biblical purposes. Socials in and of themselves are nothing.

But we humans love to label and categorise and have hierachies. We love structures. And as time goes on, we lose sight of the underlying purposes of ministries and small groups and meetings. Then we start to assume that one's relationship with God and one's godliness are dependent on outward appearances, on conforming to the structures of bible studies, one-to-ones, high profile ministries... And we slowly and unconsciously fall into the error of the Pharisees and lose sight of God.

A sister in Sydney had this interesting conversation:

"What week is [insert name of Christian conference]?"
"I don't know"
"Why not?"
"Because I'm not going."
"Why not? Are you busy? Are you going overseas?"
"Because I don't want to go."
"Oh."

Awkward silence, in which I inwardly regretted speaking her mind.
"I suppose it's a good thing. Then you have more time to spend with your non-Christian friends and share the gospel with them."

Wry smile. Be loving, be patient, be gentle, I warned myself, but I just couldn't bite back the sarcasm that edged along my tongue.

"Yes. That was the plan all along. Dine 'em before I hook 'em in. I'm sure they'll appreciate the sacrifice I've made when I tell them that."

At church and throughout the Sydney evangelical Bible belt, we have become exceedingly good at creating a methodology for many of the nuances that occur in life. Personal friendships are called "one-on-one ministry". Bible reading and prayer fall under the routine of "quiet times" or "prayer points". The gospel is summarised into six diagrams. Even being single is no longer an incidental situation in life, batted at with a plethora of support groups, fellowship dinners and seminars.

This also extends towards people. People are encouraged to attend seminars and camps that are supposed to be good for their spiritual growth. What we forget is that these events are not the only Christian events. They fall under our own narrow definition of what is "biblical" and therefore permissible. If you don't want to go, people often wonder why. A girl in my group hated fellowship because of this reason. She was tired of defending the Catholic traditions she held dear, tired of being cajoled into going to KYC over summer.

Even people themselves fall into catergories. Congregation members are separated into "workers" and "uni students" (even though you may be neither working nor fortunate enough to study at a university) and divided into more palatable sizes for ministry. Women are divided from men. They apparently need to learn to be good wives and mothers, like to attend cooking socials and never struggle with pornography. I've even heard people described as "good value" for leadership and service, context of the sentence being, "Oh Betty? I know her, she's good value. Bring her in on the team." How would you feel if someone talked about you in this way behind your back? If they thought your merit could be examined based on the activities that were visible to the crowd?

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with methods and structures in themselves, but I think that it becomes problematic when we feel the need to formalise and structure every facet of life. Firstly, we run the risk of becoming contrived and restrictive, becoming inflexible to things that fall outside our perameters. A common example I can think of is Bible study. Last year during a study, a girl tried to relate the passage to a personal problem she was going through at home. The well-meaning leader ignored her point, saying,"Can you hang on and not race ahead? Application time is at the end." It seemed so ridiculously harmless to let the girl raise her point, yet the determination to reach the end of the study and conclude with the Main Point eliminated any chance for such flexibility.

Secondly, we alienate people. This was really made clear to me when I saw the term "relational-based evangelism" on another Christian's blog. It's not the first time I've heard this term. Many Chirstians often use it to outline a method of evangelism that takes into account personal relationships rather than impersonal (and often pushy) methods. However, the irony is that it is terms like "relational-based evangelism" that turn people away from Christians. The idea of personal relationships implies a natural progression of friendship that is based on individual circumstance. It is not meant to be defined under a model or constructed as an action plan. To do that transforms the person into a target, the friendship into a task. No one likes to be treated that way. It's the reason why so many of my friends dislike the EU, and yet are extremely fond of Christian people.

I am not asking for solutions. Often when I raise this issue, people reply, So what can we do about it? What can we implement? What models can we put in place instead (I think this was the attitude behind the term "relationship-based" model of evangelism). But in trying to imply more structures, they have missed the point.

Instead, I cry for more freedom and understanding. Less reductionism, more appreciation for the complexities in life. More prayer in guidance, less structures in which a person must follow in order to live the blessed life.

...good intentions are not enough. I wish we lived in a world where intending to encourage another person was enough to make things right. Unfortunately, "good intentions of encouraging people" are not a guarantee that those people will be built up.

An example I can think of is a leader who tried to encourage a friend of mine. After sitting together at a table, he proceeded to pull out a piece of paper and ask her a list of questions in regards to her Christian growth. He would listen to her comment, write it down and then move on to the next one. According to the girl, it was the most awkward experience of her life. She felt like she was being interviewed as a subject rather than cared for as a friend. When this girl finally shared a burden that was close to her heart, the leader showed very little concern and has since failed to ask her how she was going with that burden.

I'm not telling this story to blame the leader. I believe he had the best intentions in encouraging this girl but sadly, those intentions were not enough. The girl left the meeting unencouraged and despondent. I ask you: if you were that leader, wouldn't you want to know? Wouldn't you want to reap the fruits of your effort to encourage others?

1. On the Importance of People
Much has been said about the pitfalls of predominantly following feeling and the heart as opposed to organised structure, just take the many criticisms you've probably heard of charismatic churches. In turn, I would like to point out one potential flaw in relying heavily on rigid structure to conduct our ministries:

People are vastly different, and a predominantly structural focus treats everyone like they're the same.

I thought it was interesting that you [person who wrote an email to her] wrote about your good intentions of "encouraging people to participate in the structure (in hope that the structures may be helpful for their Christian walk)". If I may ask a deeper question: how do you know that the structures you're encouraging people towards are "helpful" for their Christian walk? Is it based on a personal knowledge of that person and what he/she finds helpful, or is it based on what the general Christian population around you promotes as helpful?

Besides the bedrock foundations (belonging to a church, reading the bible together, prayer, service…though even these contain a multitude of differing forms within them), it is hard to define a clear path of set structures that every Christian will find helpful, simply because every Christian is a unique creation. Not everyone thinks and reacts to things in the same way. However, when you try to feed people into a rigid system of structures and groups, one unintentional side-effect is the treatment of people as identical subjects rather than individual beings. This is not a new concept, but has been forewarned by opponents of purely utilitarian methods in our society (its times like these I thank God I'm an arts student!). Blind devotion to a purely logical method has always been mankind’s downfall, particularly when we are so governed by our structures that we think that God can only work through them.

This mentality sounds extreme, but we tempt it everyday when we presume that church must be done in this particular way; worship must be offered in that particular way, the Bible can only be taught in this way, these type of conventions are the only ones that are "sound". Often, we defend our choices with the refrain,"this is the biblical way". We need to be careful that we don't use that word too lightly. Evangelicals are not the only Christians to hold dear to the Word of God. Millions of Christians do, and yet millions of Christians differ on its interpretation. If we get to a point where we cannot think of a Christian life outside of the structures we know and are comfortable with, then we are limiting our great God.

We also risk discouraging the people which these structures were ironically meant to serve. In all my years of working with people, whether at church or outside Christian activities, I have learnt one simple yet valuable truth: people don't like to be treated as projects. They want to be respected as human beings.

One problem of being too driven by structures and tasks is that we run the risk of reducing people into projects to manage or tasks to fulfil (hence my "reductionist" assertion). The first thing we must acknowledge is that the ones we lead are people, and implicit in that is their uniqueness. While one Christian may find KYC a fantastic experience, another Christian may not find it so helpful. One person may benefit from Matthias Media studies, another may benefit greatly from something else.

Structures are effective in keeping things running, but don't forget that they are there to serve people, not the other way around.

2. On the Importance of Difference
I think it's interesting that you commented that the structures in general seemed fine. Can I ask: how do you know that? Where is the proof that the structures seem fine? Could it be that the people who show that the structures aren't always fine are obscured from our sight or have already left the church? That maybe the ones who show you that the structures are fine are only the ones who fit into it?

Let me throw you a hypothetical. What happens if you encounter a person who, whether due to economic situation, personality, disability, theology, denomination, race, age…whatever, does not fit into that structure? How will you respond?

I have faced a similar situation with people at church and this was the advice given to me by various people in our congregation (I haven't made any of these up):

"Keep pushing."
"Find a different structure that they can fit into."
"Have more socials."
"Be more welcoming."
"Maybe they should go to another church."

Pushing can scare people away, different structures don't exist in our church, more socials can pour oil on troubled waters and "go to another church" is surely not the most loving response. I find these answers unsatisfactory because they fail to deal with the heart of the problem: the structure itself.

If you have a structure which assumes that everyone is the same type of person, accommodating those who are different becomes extremely difficult (hence my "arrow minded" assertion). The only way in which "different" Christians can have fellowship in the church is to form their own structure outside of the group, with material and relationships that encourage their growth as Christians. This is only a temporary solution; it should never be the ideal to separate different people from the entire body of believers.

Before we say,"that would ever happen in my church", I have to say that it's already happening. Right now. Right under our very noses. I lead a group of six girls (I don't think they'd mind if I say this) who struggle in varying degrees with this issue. I know of at least five more in similar situations, currently not in my group. And I don't talk to that many people at church. That's just the few that I've noticed. That's just amongst the girls. Once again, our good intentions are not enough. It just doesn't cut it to say,"well, we meant well. We meant to be encouraging". By the time those words escape our mouths that person is already out the door, never to return.

If someone doesn't fit into the structure, our response should never be,"well, what’s wrong with you, then?" Too often, this is the reply that lies on the tip of our tongue. Instead, we need to try and understand why that person doesn't fit in and, if it is for a legitimate reason, change the structure accordingly. This can only happen in a structure that leaves room for flexibility and difference. I am not against structure in principle, only those that allow no room for difference.

We serve others best by knowing how they work. But how would we know the workings of our small group members if we do not get to know them better? Formally-arranged socials are one way of doing that.

Places and Activities for Socials
Any place which is quiet enough for a conversation without having to shout one's vocal-cords hoarse, where we can sit without being continually interrupted (so the Fellowship Hall in ARPC is a no-go) and which is comfortable for long chats is a good place. It can be someone's home, or a cafe, or a picnic in the park.

Activities which involve everyone and which every member (no matter how left-footed or socially inept) can participate in and have fun are good activities to have (therefore sitting in the dark beside your small group members in a movie theatre cannot be considered a social).

We get to know people both by talking to them as well as observing how they interact with others in games and sports. Games and sports somehow bring out the worst in people: cheating, physical and verbal abuse, anger, malice, impatience etc. How can we love someone specifically (and not generally as our pet project) if we do not see them in all their gory glory?

*******

See also Legalism, Sin and Godliness.

A Lot Like Wise Love

Not one to touch the specialist genre of movies termed "romantic comedies" by certain critics and gourmands with a bargepole (and quite likely to beat off, with the said pole, any such movie that might look vaguely as if it would start creeping towards me), a strange confluence of events led me to watch "A Lot Like Love" with RG. Weeks of negotiating in Bahasa Indonesian (ήχοι όπως τα ελληνικά σε με), listening to The Bravery while doing the accounts, the shock of Chris Ujine Ong actually being nice to this "sound of a tired horse being flogged half to death" (are yer losin' yer juice mate?), contending with the sudden disappearance of climbing kakis, and a continuing distinct disinterest in Stephanie Sun's swing shoved me towards this new experience.

S$8 and about 107 minutes of Ashton Kutcher and Amanda Peet (that Demi Moore look-alike but without the saggy knees) trying to get it together later, I realised I hadn't missed much in romantic comedy terms. The film implied the existence of The Perfect One, a specific soulmate, without which one's life would not be complete.

Later in the snaking taxi queue (need that motorbike licence pronto!) RG asked if I thought that there was such a thing as The Perfect One.

Yes and no.

Yes in the sense that one's spouse, whoever they may be, would be The Perfect One; the one in whom God intended that we should find marital contentment and sexual fulfilment, because God has designed us to find that satisfaction and fulfilment in faithful heterosexual relationship of marriage.

No in the sense that after one is married, there is no chance that he has married the wrong person and somewhere out there, he has missed out on The Perfect One. He has already married her.

Bar None's Monday Sessions and Modern-day Pharisaism

To everyone's great alarm, I managed to sleepwalk through the slippery well-waxed halls of power, hostile conference calls and antagonistic negotiations still in the lull of a pleasant discussively contemplative weekend.

Hours of peaceful reading at Teajoy, a cosy little chinese teahouse along North Bridge Road with its calligraphic rice paper lanterns and piped-in guzheng music, absently pouring tea from delicate clay teapots, sipping tiny cups of the unfermented stuff and nibbling seaweed crackers amongst mainland chinese murmurs, did nothing to wake me into the work week.

Fortunately, the heavy guitar and drum assault at Bar None's revived Monday Sessions jolted the brain sufficiently.

Over the weekend, people of different life experiences surprised themselves by confessing the same conclusion: pharisaism is alive and well in modern-day evangelicalism (if we are in a church that prides itself for being bible-believing and strong on the word, this is a danger we most probably face). Some confessors were past perpetrators and were presently struggling modern-day pharisees themselves. Others were bewildered victims of such modern-day pharisaism attempting vehemently to hold on to their faith and love their torturers.

Modern-day pharisaism has the following characteristics:

• like the Pharisees of the days of old, we make up our own laws as to what it means to be "godly" or "sorted" or "mature";
  
• like the Pharisees of the New Testament, these man-made laws were taken from correct and biblical theology, but somewhere along the line of transmission, what were once suggested applications of biblical principles in specific contexts became strict rules by which "godly", "sorted" and "mature" Christians should abide;
• people in church are then judged unthinkingly and undiscerningly according to these rules. We encourage the strict, outward cold holiness of whitewashed tombs forgetting the theological root of such behaviour, absent of the gospel and the warm inner heart of love, grace and mercy.
  

Some examples of modern-day pharisaic rules include:

• thou shalt not study for a higher or professional degree (eg. Masters or a PhD or professional specialisation) or thou shalt be known as an ungodly waster of time and money;
  
• thou shalt not switch to a higher-paying job, for if thou (like in any other job, high or low-paying) art unable to attend bible study or service once in a while, thou shalt be condemned as "ungodly" and a slave to Mammon;
  
• thou shalt not take a break from a job, for that is ungodly;
  
• thou shalt not express thy emotions by clapping or swaying during songs;
  
• thou shalt not be interested in modern culture, fashion nor sports;
  
• thou shalt meet up with people in thy DG to do 1-to-1s, follow-up, gender-based studies;
  
• if thou spout-eth the right theological answers and do not disagree with thy leaders, thou art "teachable" and "mature"...etc etc

Context, context, context
But the doing or neglect of these acts mean nothing in themselves. Gentle questions should be asked of an individual's motives and reasoning behind the doing or neglect of these acts.

In evangelical circles, we are adamant that the three most fundamental tenets of good bible reading are context, context, context. By the same principle, the three most fundamental tenets of reading a person's actions and behaviour should also be context, context, context: the context of that person as an individual with his unique personality, thought-patterns, background, history, situation in life, struggles etc. Jumping to conclusions about someone before ascertaining the context of his actions is like taking a bible passage out of context and using it to suit your own fancies.

Yet this contextual reading seldom happens in our evangelical circles.

Why not?
Because we think ourselves better than others
Like the Pharisee in Jesus' parable, perhaps we merely admit our sinfulness with our words but in reality think ourselves better than others and thus exalt ourselves, thanking God that we are not like other sinners who are "ungodly", "unsorted", "immature" or "unteachable" (Luke 18:9-14).

Because we are hypocrites who have lost our first love
Perhaps we are also like the Pharisees of Jesus' time who were whitewashed tombs, who outwardly appeared beautiful, but within were full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. They appeared outwardly righteous to others, but within them was hypocrisy and lawlessness (Matthew 23:27-28). So we may be concerned to appear evangelical, "godly", "sorted", "biblical", "theologically correct" and "mature", but have lost the love of God and neighbour and have ceased to be authentically concerned for the godliness and growth of others.

Because we are blind and stumble others
Thus making up our own laws and being concerned about the outward adherence to these laws, and holding up those who outwardly adhere to these laws as godly models, we lose our way and become like the Pharisees of old who:

• tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but we ourselves are not willing to move them with our finger (Matthew 23:4);
• do or encourage others to do all their deeds to be seen by others. For we make our phylacteries broad and our fringes long, and love the place of honour at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others (it's easy to think of the modern-day equivalents. Matthew 23:5-7);
• shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces (Matthew 23:13).
  

Because we are blasé about sin and subsequent condemnation
Does modern-day pharisaism not seem like a big deal? Do we nonchalantly say, "Hey, at least we've got our God and theology right"?

Think of the hypocrisy and lack of love of God and neighbour. Think about the terrible stumbling of others as well. Unsurprisingly, Jesus had some harsh words for the Pharisees of his time:

• they are blind (Matthew 23:26);
• they are hypocrites (Matthew 23);
• they are serpents and a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7, 23:33);
• they are children of hell (Matthew 23:15) for they cannot avoid being sentenced to hell (Matthew 23:33);
  
• they will not enter heaven (Matthew 23:13).
  

Do we think that pharisaism died out in the first century? Sin did not die out, and neither did pharisaism, which is but another spawn of sin. Do we think pharisaism is an ok evil? Remember what Jesus said of the Pharisees. Both our salvation and the salvation of our disciples are at stake.

Pharisaism is ultimately an offense to the gospel of grace and mercy. Pharisees mouth the gospel but ultimately deny it in practice. Pharisaism causes the sheep to stumble and fall. Far too many people have left bible study groups and churches and the faith, fatally stung to the heart by this dreadful poison, administered by the very people who were to lead and guide them. God's sheep are precious to him and they should be precious to us too. On the last day, He will call for an accounting for the littlest sheep that we trip up.

May we always be vigilant against the all too beckoning yeast of the Pharisees. May God's Spirit and God's word in the Bible keep us from hurting and stumbling others in this prideful and wicked way.

Project Timothy: Ministry Matters 2005

Ministry Matters was, as my roomie noted, a glimpse of heaven (only if you didn't clump together in your sticky comfortable cliques or couples); where everyone from different countries and cultures, varied backgrounds and different denominations were almost of one mind and one heart, joining in one voice to sing praises of God, incessantly and obsessively talking about the unbelievably joy of knowing our good Father and being known by him, of sins self-sacrificially being paid for by Jesus who himself was sinless, glorying in the love of God, eyes tearing with elation at the heartening journeys some took to before becoming a child in the family of God and seeing how God worked through many people, links in a long chain, to bring them to himself.

The talks by Chappo and Vaughan Roberts were enormously helpful in clearing the fog of Pharisaic legalism and unscriptural liberalism in many areas of life to reveal the solid safe path of God's design. But better still was living the doctrine of the church, and soaking in the great satisfying fellowship with people who were strangers only a few days ago.

(Recordings of the talks and workshops can be acquired from the Project Timothy website.)

Duty vs "Overflow of the Heart"

It's 3.18am. But am having such a great session with God's word, I've got to record it!

It is the advice of many that to avoid legalism and Pharisaism, we do not minister out of duty but out of "the overflow of the heart". That’s always a good reminder: that we don't serve out of selfish ambition so as to put something on our Christian CV, nor to gain the approval of others, nor to boost our own self-confidence knowing that we are needed by others. We serve out of love of our fellow brothers and sisters because God first loved and served us.

Yet, there are many times, like earlier tonight, I am far too tired to minister. My painfully-strained eyes ache. My brain has overloaded and fried. My body begs for just an adequate amount of sleep please. My heart is no where overflowing with anything except, perhaps, the stress of having to keep this deteriorating body alive while being subject to skimpy meals, bad office air and other challenging immune-depleting conditions. Yet this study has to be written by today and sent out so that the recipient can prep it in time for discussion this weekend.

Blasphemously task-oriented handling of God's word? Fulfilling a duty for duty's sake and not for love of God or recipient? I want nothing but the best for those I serve. But there may not always be a feeling overwhelming love for them. Work-for-money takes up most of my time. By the time work for the day is completed, it is night and I have no more strength for feelings, of love or otherwise. I do not have the luxury of time, waiting to be in the mood to enjoy God's word before I start writing the studies. I have to firmly take myself by the scruff of my neck, studiously ignore that comfortable inviting soft bed, and get to work.

Yet. Yet, in the purposeful reading and studying, the wonderful word of God speaks to me, and comforts me and refreshes me, so that I think I can go on like this forever, delighting in it and delighting in God. It is 3am. Less than 4 hours before the alarm clock shrilly invades the peace and another day of toil begins. But happiness and excitement so fills me that I can't sleep. I must share this with everyone else!

Coincidentally [Greek chorus chants: there are no coincidences. There is only God working.], one of the main points from the study tonight was the relationship between blessing and obedience. In Exodus 19, God reiterates the covenant he made with Abraham back in Genesis 12 to Moses. With Abraham in Genesis, God promises blessings. With Moses in Exodus 19, God reveals a bit more about what he means: (1) he explains what this blessing will be, not health nor wealth but something far far better – a relationship with God himself, a reversal of the horrible consequences of the Fall; and (2) he introduces the concept of the fulfillment of the blessing being conditional upon the obedience of Israel. Is God going back on his word and unilaterally varying the terms of his earlier promise? I don’t think so. The obedience of Israel is a natural and necessary precondition to Israel being able to take hold of the blessing of God. In the Abrahamic covenant, God promised to deal with the effects of the Fall. In the Mosaic covenant, God illumines the cause of the Fall. The problem with the Fall was that man the puny creature attempted to usurp God’s rightful position as creator of the universe. The natural consequence of that was a broken relationship with God and the whole of creation being thrown out of joint. Therefore, if man was to have any relationship with God, he would have to relate to God properly, in the way creation was ordered. So to have a relationship with God, Israel would have to live in its right place under God and that would entail obeying him.

[Sidenote: think this also explains that Oi!-what-kind-of-proof-is-THAT? proof in Exodus 2:12. But that’s another story.]

Similarly I think, by obeying God in studying Scripture, I am plugging in to the way God made the universe to work, juicing up from the ordained source of energy and love: God’s word, so strengthening my relationship with God [Greek chorus again: strengthening your subjective relationship with God. Objectively, you are as close to God as you ever will be whether you feel it or not the day you acknowledged God as God.], from which in turn flows the ability and willingness to love others.

And so biblically it seems, from obedience naturally flows blessing. And from duty naturally flows the "overflow of the heart". Coolness.