Law As Freedom: Fitting With The Grain Of The Universe

When you think of rules and law, you typically don't think about freedom and love with them. That's partly why many see the Bible as a repressive and somewhat arbitrary list of do's and don'ts. Many see being a Christian then, as following these rules whether one wants to or not.

But what if the commands of God were actually life giving? What if when God created the universe, he intended a certain beautiful design that, if conformed to by humanity, led to great flourishing and deep fulfillment? That is exactly what James K.A. Smith is saying in his excellent book, Desiring the Kingdom. He says:

"...the giving of commandments is an expression of love; the commandments are given as guardrails that encourage us to act in ways that are consistent with the 'grain of the universe,' so to speak. They are the means by which God invites and encourages us to find abundance and flourishing."

God's standards for us help us match up with the grain of the universe. They are for our good, not for suppressing us. But our modern understanding fights against the reality. Smith goes on to say:

"The secular liturgies of late modern culture are bent on forming in us a notion of autonomy--a sense that we are a law unto ourselves and that we are only properly 'free' when we can choose our own ends, determine our own telos. Since it's early beginnings, Charles Taylor notes, modernity has been marked by a rejection of teleology, a rejection of the notion that there is a specified, normative end (telos) to which humanity ought to be directed in order to enjoy the good life. And this rejection was driven by a new notion of 'libertarian' freedom, which identified freedom with freedom of choice."

Smith concludes with a picture of true freedom, rightly ordered desires in conformity to how God designed the universe to be. He explains:

"In contrast, right here in Christian worship we see a very different understanding of the good: humanity and all of creation flourish when they are rightly ordered to a telos that is not of their own choosing but rather is stipulated by God. Creation is created for something, for a particular end envisioned by the Creator...The reading of the law is a displacement of our own wants and desires, reminding us that we find ourselves in a world not of our own making--which is why all our attempts to remake it as we want (as if we ourselves could be little creators) are not only doomed to failure; they are also doomed to exacerbate suffering. The announcement of the law reminds us that we inhabit not 'nature,' but creation, fashioned by a Creator, and that there is a certain grain to the universe--grooves and tracks and norms that are part of the fabric of the world. And all of creation flourishes best when our communities and relationships run with the grain of those grooves. Indeed, the biblical vision of human flourishing implicit in worship means that we are only properly free when our desires are rightly ordered, when they are bounded and directed to the end that constitutes our good. That is why the law, though it comes as a scandalous challenge to the modern desire for autonomy, is actually an invitation to be freed from a-teleological wandering. It is an invitation to find the good life by welcoming the boundaries of law that guide us into the grooves that constitute the grain of the universe and are conducive to flourishing."

I invite you to think about the law in such a way. Yes the law points to our need for a Savior, because of our inability to fulfill the law's demands. But the law is also a good thing in and of itself, a loving blueprint for what God intends for a thriving new humanity.

Why do Christians follow certain laws from the Old Testament and not others?

Tim Keller recently wrote an article responding to those who might say that Christians are inconsistant with what they follow from the Bible. For example, we do Christians eat pork and shellfish and why do we not execute people for breaking the Sabbath? His explanation is helpful and clear. Here's his conclusion:

Once you grant the main premise of the Bible---about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation---then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed. Because of Christ, the church is no longer a nation-state imposing civil penalties. It all falls into place. However, if you reject the idea of Christ as Son of God and Savior, then, of course, the Bible is at best a mishmash containing some inspiration and wisdom, but most of it would have to be rejected as foolish or erroneous.

So where does this leave us? There are only two possibilities. If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense. The other possibility is that you reject Christianity's basic thesis---you don't believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God---and then the Bible is no sure guide for you about much of anything. But you can't say in fairness that Christians are being inconsistent with their beliefs to follow the moral statements in the Old Testament while not practicing the other ones.

Read the whole thing

Is the Sabbath still required for Christians?

Justin Taylor has been posting some interesting excerpts from Thomas Schreiner's upcoming book, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law. The latest selection is on the subject of the Sabbath. I think Schreiner makes a compelling case and one that I have begun to agree with the last couple of years. Here's the summary:

Believers are not obligated to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and the Sabbath as the covenant sign are no longer applicable now that the new covenant of Jesus Christ has come. Believers are called upon to honor and respect those who think the Sabbath is still mandatory for believers. But if one argues that the Sabbath is required for salvation, such a teaching is contrary to the gospel and should be resisted forcefully. In any case, Paul makes it clear in both Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16–17 that the Sabbath has passed away now that Christ has come. It is wise naturally for believers to rest, and hence one principle that could be derived from the Sabbath is that believers should regularly rest. But the New Testament does not specify when that rest should take place, nor does it set forth a period of time when that rest should occur. We must remember that the early Christians were required to work on Sundays. They worshiped the Lord on the Lord’s Day, the day of Jesus’ resurrection, but the early Christians did not believe the Lord’s Day fulfilled or replaced the Sabbath. The Sabbath pointed toward eschatological rest in Christ, which believers enjoy in part now and will enjoy fully on the Last Day.

You can read the whole argument here