The past week was more than a little frustrating.  Some family dropped in unannounced and just expected us to have a room for them.  Now, when five people are already living in a house and most of the space is occupied, this is no easy feat.  But it is doable.  When they came by last time, we allowed them to use our living room.  But we didn’t offer this time, and it wasn’t a good time for company anyway.  Despite people’s misgivings about them coming, they took over our living room and actually holed themselves in it the entire time they were here.

By the third day, we had had enough.  And when we overheard them and my brother-in-law talking crap about us through the door (along with some pre-existing issues that I am not going to talk about here), enough was enough.  We asked them to leave.  What followed was accusations and fights and an actual lecture from my brother-in-law about how we were rude, and even un-Christian, for asking them to leave.  Needless to say, the situation was a mess and some of the logistics are still being worked out for if it happens again.

When all was said and done, I got to thinking about love.  What is loving in a situation like this?  On the one hand, love says that you give someone a place to stay and something to eat if they don’t have it.  After all, in doing so, you might be entertaining angels.  On the other hand, love says that you have an obligation to protect your family, a husband has the duty to love his wife as he loves himself and even to go so far as to lay down his life for her (and I would say that this applies to wives as well toward their husbands).

Our situation put these two loves head to head.  Stand up for the family unit versus take care of the “needy.”  We chose to defend our family.

What do you do when love conflicts with love?  How do you handle these kinds of situations?

I think it really comes down to being like Jesus.  Christianity as an institutional religion doesn’t offer any solution to this kind of thing.  The person dealing with the scenario is left to deal with the situation herself because, as is commonly said, it is a “matter of conscience.”  What this means is that you have to do what is right for you.  Being like Jesus yields a different result.

One time, Jesus went to the temple along with His disciples, and what He saw really pissed Him off.  People were there trading and buying and selling.  It was a filthy mess of animal dung and food waste.  Jesus has told these people over and over what true holiness is and what it means to follow God and here they are, in His Father’s house, causing a disruption by their corruptions.

Jesus grabs some straps and makes a whip and proceeds to throw these men out.  He turns over some tables.  Spills money on the floor.  Sets animals free.  The scene is nothing less than riotous.  People screaming and yelling and a mess covering the floor.

And in the midst of all of this, Jesus yells, in no uncertain terms, “Get the hell out of my Father’s House!  This is supposed to be a holy place and here you are using it to make a profit!  Out!  OUT!  All of you!”

Jesus was always one to show love and compassion.  He healed people and raised the dead and called His followers to turn the other cheek and give to those who asked.  What happened?

Jesus had a higher love to show.  While healing and miracles and peaceful demonstrations work wonders, they don’t have the same results when “family” begins to inadvertently destroy the home.  In Jesus’ case, those who were claiming to be His children were acting in a manner far removed from how His family was to act.  They were hurting His home.  And He would have no part of it and refused to let it continue any longer.

Sometimes, life puts love at odds with love.  Do you give the beggar a meal or do you share a Gospel presentation with him?  Do you embrace the homosexual or do you tell her what the Bible says about it and risk alienating her?  Do you share your home with all who come or do you turn some people away?  This is real life, and there seems at times to be no cut and dried answer.  But, if our goal is to be like Jesus, then we can easily see what He would do.  Sometimes, one love must come before another love.  This will not be popular to those steeped in religious jargon, but since when has being like Jesus ever been popular among those types?

I hinted around the idea, in my last post, that there is a problem with the mentality that says that America is a “Christian” nation. Today, I want to discuss that idea in further detail.

Because of the First Amendment, the statement that America is a “Christian” nation is blatantly false. A case might be able to be made that it was founded on Christian principles, but even that is a stretch. America was founded as a Representative Republic and a land where the settlers could be free from the tyranny of their previous leaders. It had nothing, really, to do with being a Christian versus being a pagan. England was a Christian nation in that the church and the state were enmeshed with each other. America was to be something vastly different.

America was founded as a place where religious freedom would be respected. It was a place where one would be allowed to be a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or a Christian and no one could say that it was illegal or ostracize you for your religious preference. Sadly, this vision died quickly in the history of our nation.

By the early to mid 1800’s, there was a new idea and that was “Manifest Destiny;” this idea that God wanted us to expand all across the Continent; the idea that God had given us this land and it was our duty to settle it. And who seemed to lead the way? The church.

As the United States expanded to include more territory, the church established schools to assimilate the Native peoples into the American way. They basically kidnapped children from their families, punished them for speaking their own languages, and forced them to learn English and the American way of doing things. All the while, these schools sought to indoctrinate and convert these children to the Christian religion. While it wasn’t illegal to be of another religious persuasion, it was discouraged, if not in word, then in deed.

In the midst of this grand expansion, groups like the Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses sprang up, groups that revel in brainwashing and control of their adherents. And this was all done, of course, in the name of God and the name of religion, and, to lesser or greater degrees depending on the sect, in the name of America.

This is not to say that God did not destine European settlers to come here. In a way, He did give them this land, but I don’t believe that God intended for them to abuse it and the indigenous people as they did. God did, and does, have a plan for America, but it was not to be a “city on a hill” in any political sense. If anything, God was calling people to the same kind of inclusion of “outsiders” that Jesus did.

But God did not call on the settlers to create a “Christian” nation. And the framers of our Constitution knew this. They did indeed acknowledge that God had endowed mankind with certain rights, but those rights were not formulated by a necessarily Christian worldview and were not limited to only those who held to the tenants of the religion. All men were granted those rights, regardless of religion.

To claim that America is a Christian nation is to tell a lie. After all, if it were true, then wouldn’t we look a lot more like Jesus?

The men who established our Constitution were not opportunists looking out only for themselves. They also had what was in the best interests of the new United States at heart. This is why, in 1791, the Constitution was Ammended to say that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Back in England, this was not the case. The church and the government were, in essence, one. This had actually been the case for a very long time. A study of politics and religion will show that the two were seemingly inseparable for centuries. From Rome to the Church of England, theocracy was the order of the day. But America was to be something different. The men who ratified this Amendment knew the dangers of theocracy, and saw to it that they would not happen on American soil.

Theocracy carries with it one very dangerous element: the government cannot be questioned because their decisions and actions are “commanded” by the gods themselves. By making it clear that the United States Congress cannot declare a state religion, they were acknowledging the humanity, and even imperfection, of the American way. They were saying, in essence, that this thing had not come from God and was simply people doing the best that they could. And it could change at any time. The Constitution could be amended. The document was a living document, not a set-in-stone, God-granted, unquestionable way. America was not established as a “Christian nation.”

Politically, this was a very smart move. In keeping with the idea that the people have some say in the decisions made by their leaders, the framers of the Amendment were assuring that it would, at least in theory, remain this way. No political leader in the United States could claim that his ideas came from God. The President could not stand before the people and act in direct opposition to their will and say that they were doing what God told them for the government was not free to make those claims. Doing so would mean that the government was endorsing a religion, and things would revert to the way they were in England, with a tyrant leader.

Sadly, this is not how many Christians want to view things. They want the government to be a Christian government. They endorse a political candidate and say that he (it’s always a he) is the Christian choice. Not only that, but, in keeping with the idea that only the wealthy can lead this country, if the man be a wealthy Christian man, the Christian church can seek to control the direction of the government in more ways. If the right wealthy Christian candidate can be elected, the logic holds, then Roe v. Wade can be overturned, prayer can be put back in schools, evolution can be removed from Science text books, to be replaced by Creationism or Intelligent Design, and homosexuals can continue to be marginalized and maybe even the lifestyle made illegal.

Thankfully, this can never happen. Our freedoms to think and live are secured as long as the First Amendment remains in effect. But not only our own freedoms, but also those of the rest of the world.

I had intended today to write a post continuing my train of thought, but I got a response from a reader that, I think, deserves some attention.

Our Founding Fathers were for the most part, native born. They didn’t immigrate here from anywhere.

I am aware that the framers of the Constitution were native-born, although I think it is safe to say that those who declared independence were immigrants. I was generalizing the story for the sake of space. I didn’t really want to have a many page post. I glossed over some of the details to get to my main point.

Most of the abuses which brought about the American Revolution were the result of policies of Parliment and the British ministers. The King signed off on them, but to say it was all his fault is an exageration.

Actually, if you read the Declaration of Independence, they do indeed blame the king. After those most famous words about the truths that are “self-evident,” they proceed to state that “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,” after which they say that he is guilty of the things that I mention in my post. It is an exaggeration, but no more an exaggeration than when we say that the President has led us to war and other such things. You’re right that it is an exaggeration, but it is their exaggeration, and not mine.

It is usually the standard practice if one “quotes” someone to at least list the source of the quote. I frankly never have heard of anything attributed to Lincoln which implied he considered blacks inferior to whites.

Here is a link to an article about this very issue. There are others, but this includes some of the material that I paraphrased for the sake of space. The quote I was referring to came from Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. When I have the book with me, I’ll post the exact quote and the page numbers in Dawkins’ book as well as the source where he found the quote.

Let’s see, the Confederacy didn’t come into existence until AFTER Lincoln was elected president.

All I was doing was using accepted terminology to help put things in perspective for my readers, similar to when people refer to Abraham and his descendants as Israelis.

Why didn’t the Founders set up a monarchy. It was a popular notion at the time to make George Washington king. It would have accomplished exactly what you claim they were trying to do. Establish the power of the elite.

I think they wanted it to be something different from what they came from. They didn’t want to impose their will on the people, but rather give them some manner of say in the matter. Of course, not all would have a say, but if they gave even the semblance of the people having a say, the people would feel they were freer than in England. Also, these men weren’t tyrants. They knew that, to be cliche, absolute power corrupts absolutely, so they divided the power to keep the temptation to tyranny at bay. And it has, for the most part, worked very well.

I was in no way belittling what the Founding Fathers established, only saying that what they established was a way for them, and those “like” them, to remain in power. It wasn’t necessarily out of greed or any impure motive. They were merely being politically intelligent.

And, I would say, that they indeed succeeded. Look at who is elected President today. If I went out and ran for president, even if I had the perfect, most Constitutionally sound campaign, I would fail if I didn’t have the financial backing of multiple millions of dollars. I would have to have become at least a Senator, and even then, I would have to have so much experience and by that time, I would be rich and a part of the political elite, whether I wanted to be or not. So, it is indeed true, that only the rich are “entitled,” if I may use that word, to run this country, and that is exactly how the framers of the Constitution intended it.

Recent times have seen a growing number of people writing books and articles that really attack the United States’ Founding Fathers and some of the early presidents. Everything from Abraham Lincoln’s secret homosexual tendencies to Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves have been brought forward in an attempt to belittle their influence on present day America. Some of this information is true, other stuff is false, but it all has one purpose: remove the hero status of the men in the early history of America. But as I reflect back on what I have learned from studying American history, I actually think that these men were geniuses in their own right.

Let’s start with Abraham Lincoln. He is actually quoted at one point as saying that he did not see African Americans as ever being treated equally, and that he didn’t think that they deserved to be. He actually viewed them as inferior to the white man. But he is one of the principal players in seeing to the end of slavery of that sort here in the U.S.

Why? Because he was smart. He knew that to join the side of the Confederates was political suicide. The majority was opposed to slavery. For him to support the practice would mean that he would most likely not be elected to a second term in office. So, as a political gesture to the men who could keep him in office, he signed the Emancipation Proclamation and freed the slaves.

But it goes back even further than that. The men who founded this nation and established our form of government knew exactly what they were doing. In light of their treatment by the king, they fled England and came to the New World to establish a free(er) life for themselves. They saw their king as a tyrant who refused to submit to any law, even if it were for the common good. He controlled what was made a law in such a way that laws could not be enacted. He called legislative bodies to be convened in ridiculous places just to get people to submit to his way of thinking. He disbanded representative houses simply because they stood against his unwarranted invasions of people’s homes and privacy. He micromanaged the decisions of the people and the courts. He kept a standing army, even in peace-times, without the people’s consent. I could go on, but you get the idea. As a result, they declared their independence and established their own Constitution.

But, when you read those documents, you notice something very interesting. They did not establish a government run by the people. The government is actually run by representatives and a congress. The President can make some executive decisions, but that is about as far as his power extends. For the Founding Fathers, this was a very smart move.

The framers of the Constitution were some of the United States’ political and economical elite. They were wealthy land-owners. When they established the form of government that they did, they ensured that the only people who would be in power were wealthy land owners. The elite. They knew that if they established a true democracy that it was very likely that they would be ousted in no time. As is true today, many times, the decisions made by the wealthy do not necessarily coincide with what the rest of the population really need. The desires of the rich and what makes for the common good are, most of the time, mutually exclusive. The Founding Fathers knew this and so they established a “Republic” rather than a “Democracy.”

Leaving America briefly, let’s look at a country that is a Democracy. Let’s take France for example. Let’s say that the teachers in France are having a hard time financially. As oil, food, and housing costs rise, their own salaries remain the same. As a result, the teachers join together and ask that the French government raise their wages. But nothing happens. So, they strike and take to the streets, demanding that the government step in and do something about their pay. They demand that the normal wage for their profession increase to compensate for the rising cost of living. The teachers are on strike, and so no schooling is going on whatsoever. An entire segment of the country has ceased to function, putting a lot of people temporarily out of work. This has obvious consequences for the French economy.

How does the government respond? They can do one of two things. They can crush the striking teachers and bring in people willing to work for that wage. Or, they can give in to the people’s demands and do something about the payment of the educators. They are smart enough to know that if these people are struggling, then so would anyone else they put in their place, so they enact a law raising the wage for teachers in France.

Our Founding Fathers knew that this is the kind of thing that the American people would do if they were allowed a true say in what the government did and didn’t do. They also knew that there were more non-wealthy than wealthy people in the country, especially when they considered slaves, that they would not stand a chance of having any governing power. So, they gave the people the opportunity to vote for representatives, out of a pool of those in their respective state from the political establishment, who would decide things in the name of the people. But not everyone would get a say. Only land owners. To own land, you had to be wealthy. Being wealthy meant being a part of the establishment. By a work of sheer genius, the rich political elite took control of the new United States of America.

219 years later, nothing has changed. In fact, things seem strangely reminiscent of the days prior to American independence. The president, and this does not apply only to our current president, refuses to submit to any law, he controls what is made a law in such a way that laws can’t be enacted, even if they are for the common good, he micromanages the decisions of the people and the courts by placing his own cronies in those positions, and he maintains a standing army, in places all over the world, with or without the people’s consent. But the attitude is that we elected him, so this must be what we want. But, just as in the days of our Founding Fathers, it is not the majority that make the decisions regarding where this country goes, it is those we chose to represent us from the wealthy, political establishment. Presidents are not elected by us, but by those in the establishment who decide for us. And they can overturn the popular decision of the people in their state if they so choose. True, a larger segment of the population can vote now. African Americans, women, rich and poor all have a vote. But they do not get to elect men or women who truly represent them. They are forced to select someone from the political establishment. We really have no vote in any real sense of the word.

So I guess if you really think about it, the Founding Fathers would be proud of where we have come. But then again, maybe that’s the problem.

We are without internet at the house, so I am at Starbuck’s indulging in their new program where, if you have a gift card and have at least $5 on it and use it regularly and have it registered online and for the rewards program, you get 2 hours of free internet access.  It’s nice.  Much faster than trying to connect using the Panera Bread’s connection, which is further away and much more slow.

Not a whole lot has gone on recently.  I’ve not heard anything from the church yet.  I am hoping to hear something today.  They said it would be 2 or 3 weeks, and it has been right at 3 weeks.  I am praying so hard for this to work.  I really am.  I won’t lie or hide my true feelings.  I really want this position, and it is exactly what we need…financially, spiritually, living arrangement-ly, everything.  It is perfect.  But, since I’ve not heard anything and not had a lot of contact from them n regards to it, I feel anxious and nervous.  I just REALLY want this to work out.

I like my job less and less every day.  It just getting to be almost unbearable.  And I am unable to find anything else, even to supplement this.  I apply places and hear absolutely nothing back.  Like my waiting to hear from the church, it is just very frustrating.

My friend Derek wrote something today that was very convicting.  He ran into a beggar guy carrying a cross and a sign asking for money or his family would be homeless.  Instead of just going on by, he gave him a couple bucks and then proceeded to walk with the guy for about 4 hours through the richer part of town: the shopping district.  As Derek and the man talked, he told Derek how he got more help in the poor part of town than from the rich.  Since it’s his story, he tells it so much better, but you get the idea.  Just some food for thought.

A general problem with much of Western Theology…is that the God portrayed is too small. It is a god of a tiny world and not a god of a galaxy, much less a universe. - Carl Sagan

The other day, I talked about how, for many Christians, God is dead. He is not present in the things that they do, support, or in the way that they act toward their neighbors. So, for them, He is dead. But this isn’t the only segment of Christianity here in the states. Another set of Christians worships a small god. For lack of a less offensive manner in which to say this, they worship the Biblical God.

The more I read and study biology and cosmology, the more I am beginning to think that the Bible should not be our final authority in matters pertaining to these topics. I am not saying that the Bible is unauthoritative, nor am I saying that it is uninspired, nor am I saying that it is not God’s revelation to humankind. It does have authority, it is inspired, and it is God revealing Himself to His people. But, when it comes to scientific matters, its knowledge is limited.

Because of the Bible’s limited knowledge of science, this means that its understanding of the Creator God is limited as well. As Carl Sagan once said, He is the god “of a tiny world.”

Interestingly, though, over the years, our understanding of this world has expanded beyond that touched on by the Biblical witness. After all, where in the Bible do you find the idea that stars form out of gas explosions or that the cells in your body are entirely replaced many times over the course of your lifetime? You can look and look, but it’s not there. And that isn’t an excuse to say that it isn’t true.

But this is what many Christians do. The attitude is that if it is not in the Bible, than it must be opposed to the Bible. It’s evolution or creation. As a result, these people’s view of God is stuck within the confines of the Biblical witness. This God is unable to grapple with the problems of modern man.

This is not to say that the true Creator God is unable to do so. In fact, if there is a God, and I believe firmly that there is, He must be very big. Bigger than we can fathom. Bigger than any holy book can capture. To limit your understanding of God and His works to the confines of a single holy book is to do the true Creator a grave disservice.

But this is not how it must always be.

I think it is time that we set aside the old idea that the Bible is our final authority in all matters. In matters of theology and church doctrine, this may be the case, but when it comes to things like biology and the cosmos, we would do well to expand our canon in a practical sense to include that which God has further revealed to humankind. We need to begin seeing the Bible as a starting point, not a finishing point, for the Christian faith, especially as it pertains to science. The Bible provides the tools for an expanding view of God, but it doesn’t provide the whole picture.

Isn’t that what it is all about? Shouldn’t we, in all things, seek truth? And isn’t this what science is seeking to do? Not all science is seeking to undermine faith. The goal of science and cosmology is simply to understand how things work; to understand the process by which stars and galaxies are formed and the process by which humankind and the rest of the animal kingdom came to be where they are today. This is not opposed to the Christian witness. Rather, it affirms it.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest. (Psalm 22:1-2 ESV)

The Christian culture that most of us have embraced here in America is everything but Christian in any real sense of the word. It looks and sounds nothing like what Jesus taught and looks nothing like the example that Jesus set down for us when He was with us physically.

Most of what we teach is centered around what He can do for you and how much blessing you can receive. It focuses on meeting perceived needs to the neglect of things that truly matter. Mercy is sacrificed for bigotry and justice for vengeance. “Love your enemies” gives way to the endorsement of preemptive military activity and the idea that God is “close to each one of us” is replaced by the notion that He is not with “them.”

And yet, through it all, as we live in direct contradiction to the ways and teachings of Jesus and His first followers, we find ourselves confused as to why He isn’t protecting us from the storm. No matter where we look, He isn’t there. We read the Bible and find nothing but archaic laws that make no sense and sound at time unjust in their own right. We ask God why He has forsaken us, but could it be that we have forsaken Him?

Nietzsche said that God was dead. My guess is that for many who claim to be Christians He is. Their needs aren’t being met, they can’t get along with the guy next door (because he is gay), the war that they baptized is showing itself to be something other than what they were told it would be, and God is just not in that. These men and women have killed God.

But this doesn’t have to be where it ends.

One day Jesus was teaching and some of his followers asked Him how to pray. Mingled in that prayer was a very bold statement. A subversive statement.

Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. (Matthew 6:10 ESV)

The way to change this, the way to bring God back to life, is to start a revolution. It may start in the heart and soul, but it doesn’t stop there. We have asked and asked for God’s kingdom to come, but He wants us to help Him establish it.

Doing so will not be easy. Doing so will mean tearing down some walls and trampling some courts and turning over some tables and calling some religious leaders out. Doing so will undoubtedly get us killed. But that is okay. To be absent from the body is to be with the Lord, after all. And blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Living as citizens of God’s kingdom rather than man’s empire will not be popular. But, as the old adage goes, what is popular isn’t always right, and what is right isn’t always popular.

God can (will) be brought back to life. God can (will) show His face again. But these events happening is, in some sense, contingent on us. We are the body of Christ, after all.

I hear a lot of different things on the radio when I park people’s cars. One of the most prominent things, aside from country music, is the Mike Gallagher show. I think the man is a nut job, but most of the time I can at least tolerate him. Today, though, something happened on the show that really bothered me.

During a call-in segment about McCain’s renouncing of John Hagee as an endorsement, he flat out laughed at a caller who said he didn’t believe in God. If you don’t believe me, you can listen to the segment here (click the link entitled ‘McCain’s Pastor Problem”; the atheist caller is near the end). I sat there and listened as the caller was chided and then let go from the phone lines. I got out of the car before I could hear any commentary that may have followed.

In hearing this, it got me to thinking about our attitude toward those who think differently from us as Christians. Why are we so intolerant? And I am not just referring to major differences in faith like atheism, Islam, or things like that. We are even intolerant of those who interpret the atonement passages of Scripture differently or even think differently about the role women play in the faith. We are sometimes downright rude toward them, even to the point of laughing at them. But is this really the Christian way? Is this what Jesus did?

As I think about how we are to interact with those who have different understandings, and I am going to limit our discussion for space’s sake to atheist/Christian dialog, I am reminded of a little story from the Gospel of John.

Jesus was becoming very popular, and when He heard as much, He went on a trip.

Now he had to go through Samaria. (John 4:4 TNIV)

He probably could have gone anywhere He wanted, but for some reason, He had to go through Samaria. The point is, He went there. And it was important that He did so.

What follows is a conversation between Jesus and a woman, and a “half-breed” woman at that. These were a lowly people, the Samaritans. The true-blooded Jews really treated these people like scum. And here is Jesus, talking to this woman, in broad daylight, and treating her as His equal. And when theological disputes arise, how does Jesus respond?

Believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem…a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. (John 4:21b, 23 TNIV)

He doesn’t laugh. He doesn’t scoff. He does point out that salvation is from the Jews, and that the Jews hold the keys to God’s kingdom, but the fact that Jesus was bringing salvation to her is proof that salvation was not to be limited to the Jews, it just came from them; it originated with them. The point is this: Jesus treated her with dignity and respect even though she had theological differences from Him.

The Samaritans and Jews were members, in a sense, of the same faith, so you would kind of expect them to have some sort of mutual respect for each other. So what about when, for example, a Christian comes in contact with an individual who doesn’t believe in God at all? I think Paul gives us a clue as to what our reaction should be.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?…God will judge those outside. (1 Corinthians 5:12a, 13a TNIV)

We are not to pass judgment on those who are outside the church. This means we are to treat them as if we have nothing against them. We are to show them even more respect than those who are a part of the church, within reason of course.

This means that laughing and scoffing are out. God will judge those outside.

For the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous. So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences testify in support of this, and their competing thoughts either accuse or excuse them on the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:13-16 HCSB)

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.” So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your ancestors! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation. (Matthew 23:29-36 TNIV)

Deeply ingrained in our Christian psyche is this idea that our sin only effects us and those around us. The idea that punishment for the sins of our ancestors may rest upon us is totally foreign, and some might say unbiblical. Yet this is exactly what Jesus is getting at in this, His final indictment against legalism.

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees were very meticulous about honoring those who came before. The grave sites of men like Abraham, Noah, Isaac, and possibly women like Ruth and Deborah were well taken care of. The sites of the Scriptural prophets were upkept with religious vigor. But there was one problem: they were being hypocritical. While they prided themselves for their piety, claiming,

If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.

Jesus knew what was truly in their hearts. And when the next generation of prophets came on the scene, they behaved in the same way as their forefathers. Innocent blood was now on their hands, just as it was on their ancestors’. And the punishment remained the same: condemnation.

And that is one of the underlying problems with legalism. The ways of the past become the measure of holiness. We may decry the racism against black people embraced by those of an earlier generation, but God forbid we embrace the Mexican. But whether we like it or not, we will receive our just punishment if we are unwilling to turn from racism and denounce it in all forms. In fact, biblically, we must also repent of past racism as well.

Racism is just one example. The evils of gender inequality, war, and extremism could also be cited. But the point remains the same.

[The Lord] does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation. (Exodus 34:7b TNIV)

But mingled in with Jesus’ indictment against legalism, He offers hope.

Jesus longs to gather the legalist to Himself, if he is willing. Too often the legalist is content with doing things his way, by the law. But if he is willing to let go, if we are willing to let go of the law, redemption is just within our grasp. Freedom from legalism is indeed possible.

Conclusion

Legalism is a dangerous road to travel. It may have the appearance of righteousness, but is, in reality, a path of uncleanness leading to damnation.

But God has offered us escape: His Son Jesus. Jesus told us what true righteousness is, and showed us how to live in it. If you are in union with God through Jesus, then you are free to live in freedom and are called to live an abundant life. Legalism will only stifle this calling.

Renounce legalism. Live in Christ. Live in freedom. Live abundantly.