Leviticus for Littlies

Ok, so the previous one was epic. Sorry about that. I really need to get to the gym, so this one should be much shorter.

So. Stu wisely suggested teaching the Levitical Laws as part of "Our Story". What a corker of an idea, you sonofagun.

Yeah, so how does this work itself out?

Well, rather than saying to the littlies, like I may or may not have heretically done in the past, "Oh, look, it's the ten commandments, it says don't murder. And, wow, if you don't respect your father and mother, we're gonna come round right now, string you up and throw rocks at you 'til you're dead." Hmmm. Actually, I don't think I've ever said that to anyone. But there have been elements that seem far more harmless that I've probably used before.

Anyway ladies...

And blokes.

The upshot of the previous post was to say, no, we are not bound by the Law. Nope, we're bound by a far more all-encompassing principle, that leads to another principle... you know the ones, because you were paying attention.

So to the kidlets, we can say that this is our history; these are the laws that God gave to the Israelites. They are good rules. But they're not just rules that we need to follow because they're rules for rules sake. Nope. We need to link them back as ways in which we love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and how we love our neighbours. So do we have to fulfill the sabbath? Nope. Because that's a law for the Israelites in their theocracy. It is however good to set aside time to dedicate to God. But that's also interesting in the context of our whole lives being worship, and our whole lives being dedicated to God.

Ok, so I was talking about my confusion with the law and all that. Discussing it with guys who have three letter names, and Dave and Darrel or Darryl... ie names starting with D. So Ken copped it first, and then D&D and then Stu and D&D. Happy with that cos D&D comes to 3 characters.

I digressed.

So. The law. God made it. It is good and perfect. Yep. We're happy with that. Almost. But I'll explain the omitted bit later.

Introducing Dan. Dan fits the name mould beautifully. He was giving a talk at CU on "Why die". In it he made the point that because of Jesus we didn't need to follow the pernickety laws, but rather to stick to "Love God with all your heart soul mind and strength" and "Love your neighbour as yourself". Such amazing freedom, because those food laws, despite being God-made, good and perfect were kind of annoying, and not all that easy to uphold, especially when bacon tastes so good.

Yes, I eat bacon.

Now. I said to myself, that's wonderful that Jesus has died for my sin of eating bacon. I don't need to worry about that anymore. SWEET! Bacon all round.

But then I stumble across Paul. Paul, you go and ruin it for me. You go and say, we're saved by grace through faith. With you there, mate. I'm happy with that - as we've discussed, I like bacon, so this grace thing is my only hope. But then... what are you doing Paul? You go and ask the question, "Shall we keep on sinning?" And I'm thinking still, well, was eating bacon a sin in the first place? Well, maybe it was if it was in the law, but then it's not really cos Jesus died for it, and then there was Peter's bacon on a sheet from heaven experience... But no, that line is just not working. Paul whacks down the big "BY NO MEANS". Ok. Better not get back into that bacon... it was tasty though. Because as Paul points out, dammit, continuing to sin crucifies Jesus again and again... making baby Jesus cry*... but worse... don't want that.

Anyway, so I've been setting up all these alters around the place... and sticking to the Saturday sabbath to play it safe...

And then I have this wonderful discussion with Stu. I was one of the three grade seven bastions in the school Bible study that Stu used to run about 11 years ago in the Calvin High School days. I think he's gotten wiser... because the first thing he said was, "Just ask her out". So maybe soon... but a bit more prayer first...

I digress again, but that was the first thing he said to me...

We were sitting at a table... and we had props... which is a very theological issue - and hopefully this discussion will go some way to answering the question of whether they were appropriate.

We had, a pair of glasses, representing God**, a wire from ear plug (head phones... gah, confused... you know the ones...) down the middle as a dividing line. We had a Bible representing the law on the left of the dividing line and on the right was my wallet representing the new covenant, or my Christ, or Christ's death and resurrection...

So, after establishing that Stu wasn't going to be preaching some prosperity doctrine (I was a little concerned about the whole wallet thing), we established... well what did we establish?

The Bible... representing the Law... the Old Testament Law, was:
1. Made by God.
2. Good.
3. Perfect.
4. For the Israelites (see what I did there... I put a 4 next to a for... I'm a dag.)
And it's point four that is the point that I missed above. I missed it completely. For the Israelites, living in a theocracy, they had the Law. And we ask, what was the purpose of the Law? Well, let's use dot points again... or numbered points cos I don't know how to get dot points in these blog posts...

So the point of the law?

1. A reflection - or to steal a word from the NT (that's New Testament...): a shadow of God's righteousness.
2. To convict of sin.
3. To govern a theocracy - that is, the Israelites, in the Promised Land.

So, outside of the law, Abraham was righteous, by faith in God (I get a bit squirmy here, because he trusted that he'd be the father of a great nation, rather than in the saving grace of Jesus Christ... but he had faith in God. Yes it does matter what you put your faith in...).

We too, are outside the Israelite theocracy.

So when Jesus says, not one iota will be scratched from the Law, what's he saying? He's saying, you can choose to live in that theocracy, and you have to obey every law. Everything. And fail. Sucked in.

Nah, but seriously, we see the Law as a shadow of goodness, a shadow of righteousness, like Mona Lisa under a drape...*** Yep, it's good. Everything about it is good, but you're not getting the whole story, or the whole glory... even if it's a pretty drape.

Whereas, in Christ, that's where we start seeing the perfect mirror image of God's righteousness. It's on that basis that we can consider Christ. It's on that basis that we can apply Christ's laws: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and Love your neighbour as yourself.

So, as I return to my bacon sandwich, I realise that the Law against eating, or merely coming into contact with bacon was not to save me from a sinful uncleanness, but rather, as a group of laws and regulations, to point out to the Israelites that they were imperfect and needed saving somehow.

Unfortunately this post has been so long that my bacon sandwich is now cold and riddled with salmonella, that I was forced to throw it away anyway... but I would have enjoyed it.



As kind of an epilogue, I asked how does this relate to how I teach Leviticus to Sunday School kids. And then I asked about how it relates to homosexuality... which led to a discussion on polygamy, which was quite interesting. So, next post on teaching the Law to Littlies...



*This is a quote from the Simpsons, I think, and also that film where they say "Shake and bake" all the time... Tailgater nights... Taladega Nights... yeah that one... a classic example of sculpting Jesus into the form that we want him to be in... the big buffoon prefers to think of Jesus as a baby... which doesn't work really all that well theologically, I don't think... but it does make a point about the humility of Christ... something to ponder, maybe?

**See, image of God. Banned by ten commandments. Feeling hot under the collar at that stage...

***Please don't get antsy with me because I'm using an analogy where human made Mona is compared to Christ/the Law/the righteous glory of God. I know that Mona is kinda cool, but not perfect, and there's probably a story behind it that involves sin... but take a step back, sink a mug of cold ginger beer and then look at it again through refreshed eyes. I mean, you've probably got really tired eyes if you've made it down to here, cos this post is pretty epic. And I still wanna get to the gym tonight and growth group is coming up...

Well dressed at church? Yeah. Maybe. Nah.

Interesting sermon from Ecclesiastes. Big positive from it was to consider Christ in everything you do. I didn't necessarily agree with the outworkings of that. What do we wear when we go to church? That was one very good question. Do we just wear whatever, or do we get dressed up to come to "The House of God"...

But I stumble when I hear reference to a "House of God". The thought of God's omnipresence... earth as his footstool... the idea of church as where two or three are gathered in my name, there I (God) will be also...

But the idea of what we present before God, that it should be "First Fruits", that is important.

But let's just tear it down first. Filthy rags... they're ringing bells. Cheers Isaiah. Man looking at the outward appearance, but God looking at the heart. So what's your heart doing. It's a funny one, because we get trained up in our different ideas of what is right and wrong... and food sacrificed to idols suddenly pricks our consciences... or yours and not mine... so what am I meant to do about that? Huh?

But our whole lives are to be a spiritual act of worship. What a blessing... and what a curse if we've got wear our Sunday best in the shower... Why should we care what others think? Maybe because we shouldn't be stumbling blocks... and we should be all things to all men. But shouldn't we come, just as we are?

I started this post finding it kinda irksome that an application of "Considering Christ"* could be that we have a Sunday Best. Not much has changed.

At what point does my brother's weaker conscience, if this is what we're talking about, impact on how I dress, in the context of my next post?



*I think that's the best way that I can summarise the sermon...

Eat v Exercise

Hmmm... food.

Yeah. Friday night. 2xmains. Saturday night. 2xmains. Sunday night. No dinner. Monday night. McDonalds. Tuesday night. Bread.

Exercise.

Friday. Stretching. Sore calves from training the night before. Saturday. Umpiring football games. Again, sore legs. Sunday. A little basketball. Monday. Gym. Tuesday. Training: yoyo test - similar to beep test.

Each day. Big breakfast. At least four slices of bread. OJ.

Lunch. Not weekends. Weekdays. Pasta. Or $4 2pm special.

I think it works.

I've decided - by observation, rather than choice - that I'm the annoying guy in Bible study groups, and probably in life in general, that asks annoying questions. It's something I pride myself on, but it's also something I'm a little ashamed of.

Take for example, last night, at growth group, studying Ecclesiastes... yes, this is Cluedo...

Studying Ecclesiastes, so generally it can be a bit depressing. I think that's the way it is. That's the point it's trying to make. Everything is meaningless under the sun. If you slave or if you slack, if you shave or if you shake, it makes no difference.

Chapter four - or maybe late in chapter three, it says that the only motivation we have is being better than our neighbour... which is an interesting insight into envy.

Suddenly (assumably) Solomon starts chatting about how it's so much better if you're working with someone else - because they can lift you up if you fall down, when you lie down, you keep warm, and a cord of three strands is not easily broken.

So who was the annoying sonofacabbage who ask "Who is my neighbour? Is it the guy you're working with? If you're just trying to get one up on your neighbour, and that is your motivation for everything, how does it work with this lovely bit about warming each other up, and all that?" It got a few laughs. I sad it as deadpan as I could muster. Damn I said it well... but it got laughs! Because it's pretty funny the idea of rather than helping up your friend, you kick him when he's down, and in particular imagining a wise old Solomon with a long whispy beard, waggling his finger, saying he expects no less of you than to kick the poor bugger while he's down. Because everything is meaningless under the son.

So two things. I disrupted a lovely discussion where everyone agreed that the author was just making the point that life is about relationships, and the importance therein... so I'm a rude bastard.

The second thing is that I'm struggling to buy this sudden change in tone. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, there's this sudden Australianistic focus on mateship. Solomon, who do you think you are? You're not an Aussie, you have no right to understand mateship. I really struggle with this, because, in the context of everything before and everything after, everything is meaningless under the sun. So you and your mate, working together, toiling, whether in perfect conditions or otherwise, that work, albeit done as a team, is meaningless. Gah. It's hopeless.

I dunno. It just seems strange to me to see this random glimmer of hope in the middle before returning to the dumps...

I’d love to think of an idea that would change the world. I want my life to be significant. Which is ironic, as I’m a dabbler. I dabble in writing, I dabble in music, I dabble in sport. I'm an engineer. I'm a Christian. I guess the last two are more than mere dabblings. They both define different aspects of my character. I think it's fair to say that engineering gives me a chance to be significant. And being a Christian takes it away again - and then somehow puts it back.

It's one of the things that I really struggle with: that desire to be significant. To write something that is big. To play music that will rock the world. To run like nobody's ever run before. But who am I to judge whether I am a good writer/musician/sportsman. Everything is by comparison. Am I such a good writer that people will read me, such a good musician that people will listen or an athlete that people would watch? And dammit, I know the answer to that.

As for engineering... I'm not the most practical person. It was ironic that I failed my theoretical learners test and passed my practical provisional licence test. Hugely ironic, I though. Admittedly, everytime I'd study for the test, I'd read half the book and fall asleep... I digress... I'm an engineer. Not the greatest one, but good enough to be paid a respectable wage for the work that I do; good enough to receive generous scholarship to study and research. That's what I do. And people value my work. That gets the tick of success. Valued in the world. A bit more than dabbling, I think it's fair to say.

It's always hardest to write about being a Christian. Is it even necessary? I try to live it. But aren't I being irrational? An irrational faith. I'm forced to wonder about this more and more, the longer I don't have my hands over my ears and my eyes tightly shut. Without those wonderful filters I am forced to admit that in many instances I just don't have a deep enough knowledge of the subjects being discussed - even as a person of reasonable intelligence who has had various theorems and hypotheses explained and re-explained. My mind is sieve-like on some of these things, so covering all of my openings might somehow stop this information from spilling out... but no, I'm running wild and free, willing to listen, attempting to understand and for the moment willing to side with the mocked - whether that be a Christian taunted by an all-knowing scientist, or with the scientist enduring the taunts of an all-knowing Christian.

So my final question, am I such a Christian that people will change?