Dear Cell, we had a sucker-punched night last Friday. You guys sucked up and withheld your best until late in the session when you guys just let it all out like a burst dam. The discussion was centered on sin, grace and disgrace. And it was a rather enraptured and energized discussion. James, Zenn, Angela(s) and Mark were firebrands. Anna was equally enthused and Kwan Hong and Jasmine had their say too. You all contributed your views on the definition of sin. Most of you say that sin is wrongdoings in general. It is disobedience and rebellion. Mark added that sin is "not doing right" when your conscience pricks you. Generally, the seven sins were stripped of its fanciful nomenclature and were called forth by name: pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, greed and fear.
Sin can be sins of commission or sins of omission. Committing a wrongful act stands in equal stead with omitting to act. In fact, they are different sides of the same coin. Basically, disobedience has two sides: disobeying by acting in contrary to God's words and disobeying by failing to do what is expected of us as Christians. Before Jesus left this world, he promised us a helper, that is, the Holy Spirit, for this expressed purpose, "If you love me, you keep my commandments...He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will live in him and manifest myself in him." (read John 14:15-24). Ultimately, the commandments of God have to be obeyed. There is no shortcut to authentic growth. Grace without obedience is disgrace or cheap grace. But it is not by our strength or wisdom that we obey, it is by the strength and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. For didn't Jesus say that it is by keeping His words that He is made manifest in us and He lives in us?
Another definition of sin starts with asking this simple question: Who is your god apart from God? Seen in this light, sin is violating the first commandment which says that we are to love our God with all that is within us. Sin is therefore self-glorification. Or, as James put it, it is self-centeredness. One author defines it this way, "sin is seeking to become oneself, to get an identity, apart from God." Oswald Chambers adds another twist to the definition, "Sin is an incurable suspicion of God." In other words, sin is suspecting that God is not good, that He is not all-powerful, that He is not all loving as he claimed. This suspicion is the springboard to self-glorification.
When we suspect God, we disown Him. When we disown Him. we dethrone Him. The mercy seat now becomes our desire seat and we do as we please. We act in rebellion and rule our spirit with the tight rein of our fleshly desires. From there, it is all downhill. Without true repentance, the redeemed can fall wayward and be lost for eternity. So, in my humblest view, your salvation is only secured to the extent that you walk within the Will of God. When you walk out of it in rebellion, and continue to walk further away from it, you can be lost forever - even if you were once saved by grace through faith. So, always keep watch and pray for it is not only the season of His second coming that we should keep watch and pray for, it is also the season of our testing and temptation!
So, don't think for a second that there is no such thing as the commission of the unpardonable sin as written in Matthew 12:31. I have heard about a preacher's wife who had backslided to such an extent as to renounce her faith. She even went further to set up a cult to worship satan and to publish articles and broadcast messages against her former faith. Barring a genuine repentance, I am afraid she had made her choice and such choice has consequences; however much we wish to avoid the topic altogether.
It was at this time of the discussion that we talked about the raving Grace teachings that have been gaining much gravitas recently. Now, let's be clear about it. There is two kinds of Christian in this world: the moral conformist and the grace-empowered. The former is ruled by regimental compliance of the laws, in particular, the Mosaic laws. The latter is ruled by repentance and gratitude. The former draws strength from strict obedience. The latter draws strength from complete abandonment or surrender. The former relies on continual works of self-effort and the latter relies on the finished work of the cross. The difference is glaring because one tries to be righteous by personal strive and the other is declared righteous by personal faith.
The best example I can give of the distinction is the parable of the prodigal son. In fact, Pastor Timothy Keller, in his book, the Prodigal God, prefers to rename the parable as the parable of the Lost Sons (in the plural). Or, the parable of the lost and the found. The parable highlights the return of the wayward son but left the readers to figure out what they can learn from the attitude and fate of the elder brother - the one who remained in the father's house, serving dutifully, taking care of the flock, maintaining his father's estate and servant, and following all the rules and laws of the household to a tee.
When the Prodigal son came home, his father met him half way. I can picture the scene. The father must be waiting at the edge of his estate every single day for his son to return. His heart must have skipped a beat whenever he saw a shadow from a distance. On the day his younger son came back, after squandering his share of the inheritance, the father rushed to embrace him and told his servants to bring the finest robe for him. Usually, the finest robe would be the father's. The father also gave the Prodigal son a ring to show that he is completely restored and sandals to buttress his sore feet. In celebration, the father ordered his servants to sacrifice the fattest calf. This was to be a feast fit for royalty. The father held nothing back for his wayward son who was once lost but now found. The son knew that he had sinned and was totally unworthy to be his son. He even planned to be employed as one of his father's servants and to live in the servants' quarters. But his father gave him no opportunity to set his plan in motion. His father's reconciliation was immediate. His father's love undiminished. His father accepted him back wholeheartedly. Beloved, this is grace - unmerited favor, unreserved mercy and unconditional love.
Then, a few passage later, in the midst of the celebration, we read about the elder son. He was seething, very unhappy, very envious. He felt shortchanged. He felt great injustice. Instead of celebrating the event and rejoicing with his brother, he confronted the father when his father came out of the celebration to meet him. He told his father how he had served him all these years and had never disobeyed his commandments. And yet, he questioned his father for throwing such a lavish feast for his disobedient brother who had wasted all his share of the inheritance. I guess the elder son was also mad that he now has a smaller pie of the father's inheritance since he has to share it with his younger brother. The father then replied, "Son, you're always with me and whatever I have is yours."
Apparently, the son was so consumed by jealousy, hatred and greed that he had forgotten that he had inverted the order of priority by placing what was least important first and what was most important last. Beloved, this is a moral-conformist by all counts. In the end, the highlight of the parable should be on the elder son and not so much on the younger one. I dread to think of the fate of the elder son. He had spent his wasted years complying with every rule and law and yet not one of them could save him or transform his heart. In contrast, the younger son had broken every rule conceiveable and yet by just one act of repentance, he was transformed. In the end, I guess one would die bitter and the other saved. And the one saved was saved by grace.
Grace is, without a doubt, the crown jewel of the new covenant. We can come and stand boldly before God in the holy of holies because Jesus has done it all. His death frees us from legalism. We can celebrate the new covenant based on faith and grace and forget about relying on our own strength and wisdom to attain the standard set for us by the law. Note that I say that we can "forget about relying on our own strength and wisdom"- that's legalism. I did not say that we can forget about the law altogether because that would contradict what Jesus said earlier in John 14:15. Grace has empowered us to live a life worthy of Christ because we have come to the realization that we are saved unconditionally and are counted as righteous before God. It is therefore with gratitude, faith and hope that we live our Christian life. A grace-empowered life does not make us infallible; but it gives us a God-inspired conscience to repent from our failings (bearing the consequences that follows, of course) and to claim our future victory unencumbered by guilt, shame or fear. A Christian walk empowered by grace is therefore one that moves from one victory to another. So, at this juncture, let me reiterate that the enemy of grace is not the law (commandments), it is legalism or humanism.
Let me end with this parable narrated by an author whose name now escapes me. It is a story of Peter and Jesus. This is not found in the Bible but it carries an important message. It is said that Peter and the other disciples were travelling with Jesus when Jesus stopped his disciples halfway and asked them to find a rock and carry it along the journey. As the others went to look for their rock, Peter found a pebble and happily kept it by his side. He must be thinking that this makes sense since the journey was going to be a long one and it would be too physically exhausting to carry a rock heavier than a pebble. After travelling for a while, Jesus stopped his disciples and asked them to place their rock before him. Jesus then turned all the rock into bread. As Peter's rock was just a pebble, he had bun for lunch instead of a hearty loaf. After lunch, Jesus again instructed his disciples to look for a rock. This time, Peter was wiser and he chose a rock many times heavier and bigger than a pebble. He was looking forward to a feast at the end of the day. When night drew near, Jesus again stopped his disciples and asked them to cast their rock into a nearby stream. Puzzled, they did as told - including Peter, who reluctantly threw his huge rock into the stream. When Jesus beckoned his disciples to follow him, Peter hesitated, he was a little disappointed. Jesus then turned to him and said, "Who were you carrying the rock for?"
Beloved, there is a very important message in this story. Sometimes, we need to examine our hearts. We need to know why we believe what we believe. Are we believing for our own sake? Are we doing it for self-benefit or self-profit? Are we carrying the cross so that we can be rich, recognized, adorned, or celebrated? Are we attending church for companionship or to make someone we love happy? Are we being religious for religion's sake? Are we obeying to please our pastors and not God? Are we looking for something in return for becoming a Christian? Peter had carried the rock so that he could have a hearty meal but, on the two occasions, his plans for self-profit was thwarted. He did not carry it for Jesus; he basically did it for himself. Now with no disrespect to Peter because this is just a make-up story to prove a point, we have to ask ourselves the same question because our motive ultimately determines our growth. So, it is time we look into St James' mirror and reflect on this: Who are we carrying the rock for? Jesus or ourself?
Have a weekend of rewarding reflection.
No comments:
Post a Comment