I reviewed my previous post and wanted to edit it, simply to clarify and expand. The first post was less than precise. I replaced it with this.
Here is the context: I recently received this question from someone:
Q: Many of my friends see that nativity scenes are a violation of the second commandment, especially portraying a human baby Jesus'. What do you think about it?
This is a perfect example of where I think lines between specificity of the command and modern application take us into the heart of Liberty in Christ and the application of the Gospel in various positions of conscience. My calling was to ask question to help the person discern the mind of God for them, not to discern the mind of God for every person. Why do I say that?
My Reply:(there was a lengthy discussion with a few of us, but this is a summary and additional thoughts, in a NEW FORM)
This question highlights the issue of applying the word of God to our lives. And it shows the place for personal conscience and Christian liberty. I think the person asking needs to stop asking what their friends think and what I think, rather they should go to God, with Bible in hand, and discern how they are to apply the word of God to nativity scenes -- and do so. They are not make that application universal.
I believe every Christian must take the clear commands of God in the Bible, and apply them to their lives. In many cases the application is a one to one correspondence. Not stealing means not shoplifting. Not committing adultery means no sexual union with another outside of marriage.
But in far more cases the application is not a one to one correspondence. Can I watch television? If so, what programs? What in television is a temptation to me? How much can I spend on a car? How many pairs of shoes can I own? Is it faith or unbelief to have life insurance? Can I play golf on a Sunday afternoon? If my unbelieving friend invites me to dinner to discuss the Gospel on a night when it means I miss a church function, is it OK to accept? Is it OK to listen to secular music? How shall I school my children?
And MORE . . . Is it OK for Christians to enjoy reading about War? (does it tempts me to hatred?) Combat? Sherlock Holmes? People getting killed? Terrorism? Crime? I am serious about these.
Or take this: Is watching football an endorsement of violence, greed, exploitation, and the sponsors who do the commercials?
I could make a case that they are inconsistent, endorsing the exploitation of young people by a college that uses the sports competition as a primary fundraiser. I know Christians who think nothing of spending hours watching bowl games and would not go near a PG movie. Am I to make a rule for them?
The questions are very broad and there are a variety of voluntary activities we engage in where the same principle could be applied. Is that what Paul is after?
The list is ENDLESS. I repeat, ENDLESS!
And we are tempted to develop a lengthy set of case laws governing every situation imaginable. That is entirely the wrong path. What is the right path?
In cases where there is no one to one correspondence and where multiple principles apply, seek personal application and follow it without universalizing the rule.
I must apply. I have every reason to seek the application of Scripture to my life -- and to do so as unto the Lord. To say, "It doesn't matter, I am free" is not living unto the Lord. To say, "I think this is an area of life where I may partake or abstain and know I am pleasing God, but I sense God is calling me to partake" -- THAT is conscience toward God.
I dare not add to the Word of God. I also have no warrant to go beyond what is written, and make the work of the Spirit in my heart and life the universal rule for all, and to judge all by my rule. And I must turn from the most subtle form of legalism, to think my rule is superior and if the other person "got it" as well as I do, they would agree with me. It is precisely against such pride that the Apostles speaks in Romans 14.
So, what about this question? Are nativity scenes a violation of the second command?
The second command addresses making and worshipping visible images of God, i.e. mis-representations of God and worship. The two commands work in symphony. It deals with religious imagery for the purposes of worship, representing the invisible God in visible form. The ancient context was about making an image like a Golden Calf to represent Yahweh.
But it says nothing about nativity scenes per se. And it is written pre-incarnation. I can argue this way: Jesus was made man for us and for our salvation. He was a baby. No one looking on him saw anything unusual in his humanity. He cried and fussed and nursed and slept and needed his diapers changed. To have a baby in a manger is actually quite true to fact. The command is simply not that explicit. Moses did not speak about nativity scenes. I am not saying this may or may not apply, only that it is not specific -- and to say it is risks adding to the Word of God.
But I may also conclude that imaging Jesus as a baby is a half truth, and I will flee from that.
Both are legitimate applications. The command is not clearly about nativity scenes per se. What would be clear is this: if I saw someone setting up a nativity and then bowing to it, that would be clear. But to have a representative nativity scene on a piano in the living room as a piece of art, which we have, is not specifically prohibited.
This is the genius of the Bible -- God speaks with some general principles which can be applied in any culture, and those applications will vary according to the work of the Spirit and the individual's conscience. In my early years as a Christian, I could not attend or watch or listen to baseball games.
That was God's work in my conscience. And I judged people who were so carnal as to enjoy baseball! You may think this a trivial example, but it was not trivial in my conscience.
In matters where there is no explicit command, we must all make choices before God -- and do so with a conscience toward God. One man takes path A, the other path B -- let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.
But we may not prescribe our personal conclusion as the very law of God for another. That far exceeds our authority. It is binding the conscience with a rule of man, not a rule of God.
I would press people to apply the call of redemption in holy living -- and to do it in the details. Freedom in Christ is freedom to be holy.
To the subject of television, since my previous post was not precise on this, I think we need to ask what is appropriate to watch. In these days television is no longer as innocent as it once was. There are explicit acts and scenes of immorality and there are scenes of jesting about immorality. The question to ask before God is: what may I watch for the pleasing of God? If someone thinks they can watch CSI despite occasional coarse jesting, they must do so before God -- to their own Lord they stand or fall. If someone says, "no TV in my house" they must do so before the Lord. But I may not judge or despise others for our differences.
There are thousands of applications of God's word not explicitly addressed in God's word. Go for the application before God by the Spirit! But do not take up the place of God and decree commands God did not see fit to decree. And keep learning God's word and applying it so that you can grow in holiness.
So, hear me clearly -- to walk with God we must make those choices and do it knowing that we are pleasing to God. But Romans 14 says we dare not step into the role of law-giver and judge -- despising or judging. We may help each other with good questions and with respect for the work of God in the other person. We are to lay down our rights to serve each other too.
But we must not judge or despise. I am personally tempted to despise men who add to the Word of God. That is sin in my heart.
Read Romans 14 carefully -- stew in it, soak in it -- it is remarkable. In it, God answers ten thousand secondary questions that would rise in all the cultures of the world where the Gospel is believed. Paul was wise -- he knew that when we start into the answering of all those questions and application and start developing a list of appendices to the Law, we are on a path of diversion from the purposes of God and the freedom of the Gospel.
Thank you for this cool read. I really learned a lot.
Posted by: Kevin Benico | December 29, 2010 at 06:55 PM