Laws in Christ's Day
Stephen Terry
Commentary for the April 5, 2014
Sabbath School Lesson
“These are the laws you are to set
before them” Exodus 21:1, NIV
In the 2014
television series, “The 100,” mankind is faced with a post-apocalyptic world
that has been devastated half a century before by nuclear holocaust. The small,
surviving remnant of humanity has been biding its time on a satellite in high
orbit above the Earth. In order to determine if the planet is now habitable,
they decide to send 100 teenagers to the planet surface and monitor them like
guinea pigs for any ill results. The results of the project are critical as the
satellite has reached the end of its useful life and is decaying around them.
The thesis
of this series is similar to other "teen exploitation by evil adults"
movies like 1968’s “Wild in the Streets” that popularized Jack Weinberg’s saw “Don’t
trust anyone over 30.” There are stereotypical characterizations of teenagers
and a few evil adults, but there is an intriguing exploration in the opening episodes
of what role rules or laws play in society. Those teens that have been punished
and imprisoned on the satellite because of societal restrictions see an
opportunity for a new beginning without such constraints. That group rallies
around a charismatic leader who declares, “There are no rules!” to cheering and
applause. In a ceremony of liberation, a number of the teens destroy their
monitoring bracelets to cut their link to the highly structured colony in the
satellite above. This sets the stage for the struggle between those who want no
restrictions and those who see rules as beneficial for everyone.
A telling
moment arrives later in episode two when a returning party brings back an
animal that they have killed and roasts it for dinner. The charismatic
anti-nomian states “Only those without monitoring bracelets will be allowed to
have something to eat from the kill.” However, Jasper, played by Devon Bostick,
walks over and takes part of the kill without removing his bracelet. When
challenged for this, he replies, “I thought there are no rules.” He is then
allowed to take his share without further challenge as his logic stymies the
opposition. This does not prevent them from enforcing the “rule” against others
who are weaker, though. Ironically, their revolution was against the adults who
used the rules to control and oppress others, but the default position they
fall back to when allowed the freedom to create a new and different society is
to do exactly the same thing. Without a common agreement about the necessity
for rules and what those rules should be, perhaps this is the result when only
self-interest is the motivation for societal interactions.
Maybe it is an
underlying concern about an apparent, inherent selfishness in humanity that causes
some to fear the idea of setting aside the law in favor of a grace based
spiritual walk. They confuse the idea of not being condemned by the law[i]
with the statement, as in the television series, “There are no rules!” Perhaps
the use of labels like “anti-nomian” only adds to the confusion. Even the
person who said, “There are no rules!” was soon making them for others and
therefore was not purely anti-nomian. He was only against the rules that
restrained his behavior. Just as there are far more people who profess
agnosticism rather than atheism, something which is difficult to prove beyond a
doubt, so there are likely far more people who are opposed to laws that chafe
them as opposed to being against all laws. Even profligate criminals have been
known to call the police when someone causes harm to them or their property by
breaking the law. Perhaps the true anti-nomian is simply a “straw man” thrown
up for sake of argument when one feels that another should be observing a rule
or law that they themselves have been observing. In the converse, the term “legalist”
may be a similar construction when faced with someone who is observing a law
that another deems unnecessary.
For
instance, In spite of Paul’s counsel regarding such things,[ii]
one brother or sister may see the observation of certain rules about eating and
drinking as being salvific and therefore obligatory to all. Another may see
such an imposition as simply being a desire by one to control the spiritual
experience of another and call that legalism, even though what they were
intending was to rebel against that persons attempt at control, not against any
idea of obedience. The one with the rules, based on the claim of legalism, may mistakenly
feel that the person is simply against all spiritual rules. Sometimes it is
hard not to appear controlling, even though we may usurp the authority of God
when we do. Paul perhaps exhibited controlling behavior when he said those who
do not work should not eat.[iii]
At times we may forget that even the best intentions can be expressed in less
than ideal ways. When we do that and then set up “straw men” of accusations to justify
our positions, we may only end up making ourselves look even more controlling.
The Bible
appears to come down often on the side of rules and their necessity. This is
true whether we are talking about the rules codified by Moses or those put in
place by Gentiles. Even Jesus’ parents submitted to the taxation requirements
of the Roman Empire at the time of His birth.[iv]
This presents an interesting contrast to modern Christians who protest on
supposedly Christian principles against paying their taxes for fear of what those
taxes will be used for. It would be surprising if Joseph and Mary agreed with
everything the Roman Empire did with the money they raised through the census
taxation. Just as today, there were most likely those who saw it as a religious
duty to resist the Empire. However, then as now, they tended to be seen as
extremists who did not represent the accepted thinking of the body of
believers. Paul actually seemed to counsel the same course as Mary and Joseph
in contradiction to such anti-law ideas.[v]
While many
may say that we are saved by grace and not by obedience, they are perhaps not
saying that there should be no obedience. Rather they may simply be saying that
obedience is not salvific, but it is an outgrowth of a salvific relationship
with Christ. In other words, to quote Morris Venden, “An apple tree bears
apples because it is an apple tree, never in order to be one.”[vi]
The implication of this is that the Christian does not do good works to be a
Christian, and perhaps not even to prove he is a Christian, but as a result of
being a Christian. You see if it is done to prove one is a Christian, then it
sets up a slippery slope of control and condemnation. First one must decide
what constitutes good works. Then, that standard is applied to other Christians
in judgment, and finally those who do not conform to the standard are condemned
as not being Christian. While in theory this may be seen as being profitable
for “purifying” the church, in practice, every step is fraught with issues of
context and perspective. Perhaps this is why judgment is reserved to God, and
we are to ignore the “tares” or weeds in the meantime.[vii]
For example,
some might include in their list of good works, going to church each week,
while another might include feeding the homeless. How would the two be
reconciled if someone skipped church to feed the homeless, or if someone
hurried to get to church and neglected to provide an adequate breakfast for
themselves and their family? As much as we might wish it to be so, Christianity
is not necessarily a simple choice between “black-and-white.” When we lend
consideration to the context, what we may have previously judged to be
un-Christian, may be anything but. Perhaps this is why the founders of
Seventh-day Adventism were wisely opposed to creedal statements of belief. They
knew they could be misused to judge and condemn those who may have done nothing
in opposition to Christ. Ellen White, one of those founders, said of
Christianity, “It is not a creed.”[viii]
Perhaps as
we have progressed through this article it has been apparent that rules or laws
are intrinsic to society, but that these rules whether imposed from within or
without the church are not salvific. Sometimes these rules may be about control
rather than beneficial harmony. The rules may also distort our ability to have
a clear perspective on the situation, especially if we make the people unquestioningly
subservient to the rules rather than the other way around.[ix]
We shall explore further the interface between faith and practice, or as some
would have it, grace and the law as we move forward with these studies.
