A traditional Conservative never believes that he has learned of a principle higher than those that God has revealed.When I decided to stop giving my friend the dollar at lunch, I was not saying "To hell with God's commandment to give when begged," I was merely stopping a soft version of theft, which is distinctly forbidden in the Ten Commandments.
This concept gets carried into national fiscal policies.
Conservatives are often considered greedy for wanting lower taxes and not supporting the Welfare State.
In actuality, traditional conservatives are not greedy. Modern day Conservatism comes from the Calvinist tradition of self restraint: that is reasonable management of ones life by oneself, not by others.
We Conservatives consider it theft for the State to take our hard earned money and give it to somebody else.
Once more, the money doesn't really go to somebody else, but instead to Government ran programs that are often taken advantage of in the same fashion as my friend living off of my dollars for a few weeks in High School.
How do you judge a political system? The same way you judge anything: "You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:16)
It is well published that Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals (look at Paul's thoughts on this in Ephesians 4:28). It's easy to guess that Liberals give less because they satisfy their charitable duties by voting for fiscally liberal policies, like high taxes to fund the Welfare State.
In other words, the Liberals are a lot like Ebeneezer Scrooge who dismisses any concern for the poor by claiming he's "taxed for them, isn't it enough," or "Are there no work houses?"
And so I got myself a pretty good idea of what being a Conservative means and how it is directly inspired by Biblical values.
But there are genuine and deeply faithful Christians who are Liberals and have equal amount of criticism for Conservatives that I have for them.
It is easy to dismiss these people as genuine but mistaken.
However, I recently played devil's advocate with my political views and decided to judge the fruits of Conservatism:
War. Economic Recession. Reputation for torturing POW's. Many poor people claiming we are making it harder for them to put food on the table.
Let us not debate the specific policies of President George W. Bush; he is not a true Conservative and was far from a perfect president.
However, these fruits do come from the American way, the way we Conservatives wish to Conserve.
What is the American Way? Capitalism; American Exceptionalism; Strong foreign policy.
This is not a flattering image.
Then the most horrifying thought crossed my mind, what if when I die and am placed in front of God for judgment and he turns me away saying "I never knew you...you evil doers." for He said many will deceive themselves to be Christians without really being one (Matthew 7:23).
I did what any confused Christian does: start reading the Bible; more accurately, searching for the support of my world view.
The Old Testament is full of Conservative ideology from tough justice, aggressive military action, and an emphasis on the sovereignty of Israel and its citizens.
That is no surprise.
The New Testament, on the other hand, barely has anything at all to support a Conservative World View.
This is a big problem for a Christian: certainly Jesus' words overrule those of the Prophets and Kings that came before Him!
The solution commonly given for this discrepancy by Conservatives is in Matthew 5:17-20:
Do not think that I come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished...Easy enough. But He goes on:
...Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.He then goes on to correct, or further elaborate the meaning of several commandments. This is where we get "turn the other cheek" from; it is Jesus' correction of the law concerning retaliation.
I won't type out the entire section of the Gospel, but if you read Matthew 5-7, Jesus makes it sound like you have to be Mother Theresa to make it into Heaven and avoid...the other place.
This is not what I was taught.
Maybe I guess I was misinformed.
But why did Jesus die for our sins then if He expected us to be perfect?
If the extreme, downright super-human actions and lifestyles He demands of us is what we need to get into Heaven, what purpose was their in his sacrifice and resulting grace?
My Dad always told me that this section of Matthew merely points out how impossible it is for a human being to keep the Law 100%.
But it doesn't say that anywhere on the page; sorry, I'm going with what the Bible says over my Dad.
Besides, if Grace forgives all sins, how come Jesus says before these commandments "whoever breaks these commandments...will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven."
It doesn't seem to make sense: on one hand, Jesus sounds like a legalist; on the other hand, he sacrificed Himself so that we won't be bound by legalism.
This is when you turn to other parts of the Bible to clarify passages that confuse you.
We must keep in mind that not only is the Bible a translation of a translation of a translation, but it was also originally written in languages that have more nuances to them than English. Also, the cultural context has changed quite a lot since these Gospels were written down.
In other words: The Bible has been simplified over the years and some things thought to be understood can be lost to the casual reader today.
I went to St. Paul's epistles for clarification. Romans has the answers.
In this epistle, St. Paul makes it clear exactly what Jesus' sacrifice meant:
He writes about how the Old Law, given to Moses, is basically a condemner.
We humans are Fallen, and hence un-Godly by nature.
We can not be like God no matter how hard we try.
Hence the Law was given to maintain social order, but also to educate us about sin.
Ideally, this is so we avoid sin, but ironically, the Law actually amplifies it:
...if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin...But sin seizing an opportunity in the commandments produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died... (Romans 7:7-10).Once Mankind grasped the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we knew what was right and wrong. God gave us Commandments to state this clearly, but since we can not keep the true spirit of the Commandments 100% of the time, we are inherently lawbreakers and hence subject to punishment and death.
That is the Old Law.
What did Jesus mean when he said he would "fulfill" the Old Law?
...by sending His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk...according to the Spirit. (Romans 3-4)Jesus paid the penalty that we should have paid.
Because he was sinless, it is ultimate payment, meaning payment for all who wish to be with God.
It would seem like we're off the hook, but not quite: "...you are slaves to the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness." (Romans 6:16)
So we are not to ignore the Law, for it still educates us how to live and what to avoid.
Remember that the purpose of my exploration of these readings was to learn what Jesus or anyone from the New Testament said about disobeying one Law, to obey another; specifically: disobeying Jesus' command to give to all who begs vs. Thall shall not steal (or Paul's command about moochers in Ephesians 4:28).
Interesting, how this is a belief that Martin Luther had called "The Two Realms Theory", which I never heard of before looking into this stuff; it states that the real world must still be ruled by common sense, though our souls by God's love.
I assumed the grace of Jesus' sacrifice atoned for such conflicts.
But now I'm not so sure, because neither Jesus nor any of the Epistles discuss this issue.
The closest example is Jesus' comparing the Old and New Law to that of pouring new wine into an old wineskin (Matthew 9:14-17).
The wineskin will break, and the wine will spill all over the place.
Trying to rectify the Old with the New only defeats the purpose of both.
At this point, I start to wonder if Jesus is requiring us to follow the Old Law as perfectly as he commands in Matthew 5-7.
In that case, are we to reverse being mugged by reality and revoke the Old Law?
St. Paul disagrees, "sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law." (Romans 5:13)
The confusion continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment