Church jottings 2022-10-02

 

 Today's sermon from WSFC: living in step with the Gospel

Galatians 2:11–16 

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (ESV)

•  Cyndi opened service this morning, and I really appreciate how she spoken about the Lord's Table as the "best meal" in our lives. In other traditions it's called the Eucharist, which comes from the word "to celebrate", and that seems very fitting. Should there be some somber reflection on the death of our Lord? Yes, but moreover it is right that we rejoice in such love as we proclaim his sacrifice for us.
  

•  I'm thankful the heaven won't be overly repetitive, but that we have so many myriad ways now and forever to worship and enjoy our God. He created (and allows us to use as tools in worship) multi-part musical harmony, and physical symbols like the Lord's supper, and poetic use of words in lyrics and oratory to convey beauty and power, and bodily movement like dancing and upraised hands and weeping, and...
  

•  The sermon continues Galatians and the point that we are set free from the law to live in grace, yet that doesn't mean that our actions don't matter. We cannot be saved by our actions or morality (Trent did a great job of defining "works of the law"), but our lives should be in step with the Gospel. Not only should we not deny the Gospel in word or deed, but we should live in such a way that positively affirms it.
• As an aside, the division of the OT law into ceremonial/civil/moral is, in my opinion, forced onto the Bible from an outside thought and not something we see anywhere related in the Scriptures themselves. We don't have to obey any sort of law, even the "moral" ones, to be right with God. Rather, if God has made us new and given us hearts to love him, etc., we do these things because that's how we love our Father and walk with Him, not because of any legal obligation whatsoever. I think I have an older post about that, or I'll write one in the future; comment if interested.
  

• The opening of this text shows both the need for loving confrontation and the grounds for it. 
• We should work things out, even sometimes heatedly, with our brothers and sisters (cf. Matt 18), wherever possible. The prohibition on gossip is good, if sadly and infuriatingly abused by some who call gossip what is not. I have a whole essay on this I'll share another time; comment if interested.
  
• On the other side, Paul isn't eagerly seeking confrontation over trivialities. He addresses Peter's problem "because he stood condemned." And if I stand condemned, is it not loving (to me and to those affected by me) to point that out and call me back to the Way?
  
  
•   One of Trent's, and Paul's, main points is how ethnocentrism has no place in Gospel community. As I mentioned last week, this should really be gutted out of any American by the simple fact that as Paul is writing, we are the Gentiles, the outsiders, the ἔθνη (ethne), those far distant in culture and time and geography.
• I also appreciate how Trent mentioned the importance of sharing a meal. This wasn't some obscure or ancillary "who cares who you choose to eat with" thing. Think about it: what does it mean for you to take time to share a meal with someone? Who do you generally eat with? It's a source and sign of community, and fracturing the community by segregating our meal-mates is a huge problem if the Gospel bigger than these distinctions.
   
• The "road map" of tracing the Biblical themes of marriage and ethnicity and how they magnify the power and grace of God throughout redemptive history was glorious; go back to that part and listen to it, because a summary won't do it justice. A brief highlight or two:
• Marriage showing God's nature as unity in diversity is not something wholly new, but they way Trent articulated it hit me afresh.
• I wish time had permitted a bit more, especially because a (probably unintentional) gloss was made that seemed to imply that the "Christ as husband, Church as bride" was new to the NT. That imagery of marriage between God and His people (especially Israel as an unfaithful wife) is throughout the OT, too.
• The point about how at Pentecost, God didn't make everyone understand one language, but allowed everyone to hear in their own as an endorsement of diversity, was new to me and a point very well made.
  
  
• I mentioned last week about how "God shows no partiality" is both immensely important and really good news. Referencing 1 Tim. 5:21, Trent mentioned how prejudging and partiality are linked. The most clear-cut way of putting it for me is that partiality and prejudice have at their root a problem with assuming from a generality ("all X people are Y, and you're part of X, therefore you're Y") and of including irrelevancies (what difference does your nationality make about baking, or your gender about coding, or your ethnicity about the Gospel?).
• That last bit is I think where many of us can go astray. We make distinctions between people all the time, and their ought to be in many ways. I don't want a neurosurgeon who knows nothing of plumbing to install my sink, or a farmer to teach theoretical physics, or an atheist to help my marriage better reflect Christ and the church. But we should only include those things that are relevant, that directly impact the matter at hand, to be part of any decision-making and judgment.
  

• Trent mentioned the trap of "the fear of man" and well described it. 
• Because the Gospel is chiefly about the glory of God in the salvation of His people, we can't try to save people from sin by giving into ungodly opinions and beliefs.
• Trent's practical note seemed profound and wise: to get over people-pleasing, the best method may be disappointing someone for Jesus's sake (not for your own), surviving the damaged relationship, and realizing that you're still OK because Christ is with you.
  
• I prefer the old-school term vanity, and could (have?) written about the distinction between vanity and pride and true humility; comment if interested.
  
  
•  In dealing with hypocrisy (which iirc the Greek word is rooted/used for actors on a stage), the Gospel frees us from play-acting by separating our acceptance from our actions. If I don't have to act like I have it all together for God to accept me, then I can live in authenticity, neither hiding my struggles nor trapped by them.
•  God is glorified in our goodness and the transformation He brings in our lives toward righteous: this is absolutely true. But Christ is also glorified in our honest admission of our not-yet-fully-sanctified selves, our dependence on His grace for our remaining sins, and His abundant provision of mercy and help for us. We are out of step with the Gospel when we act like we have it all together, even if we attribute that to the Lord. We need not be afraid of showing our faults, because He is glorified in our weakness. We affirm the Gospel by living a life of constant returning to the cross and receiving the forgiveness and the new life that was bought costly and provided freely by our Savior, and doing so publicly.
  
  
•  During communion, I have a habit of taking the piece of bread I receive and breaking it, because its purpose is to remind me of the broken body of Christ. The bread breaks, never to be made whole, outside my power to fix, and only further to be broken as I eat of it. This is what Christ chose to do, to save even me. What struck me today was how, even though Jesus is fully capable of having a healed body, He chooses to maintain the ignoble scars of His crucifixion even unto eternity. When I consider the scars I have and those I've inflicted, I often shudder at the inescapable permanence of my sins, even beyond the power of forgiveness to completely wipe from the face of history and reality. But if the Son of God chooses to keep His scars for His greater glory and joy as my Savior, then perhaps He likewise plans the indelible mistakes of my story to bring a fuller weight of glory that surpasses the shame and reproach of them. Soli Deo gloria!