Christian Liberty and Promise

(from a Wesleyan Perspective)

by Philip McPherson Rudisill

November 18, 2002

For a more recent and expanded essay on this topic, see Liberty of Gentile Christian.

One of the more startling teachings of the Christian faith is the moral connation of its concepts, as opposed to the (rarely excepted) materialism of the Jewish context from which the Christian faith arose. We see this in several areas: Jesus' refusal to limit his aid to his wards* in order to conform to the rules of Jewish materialism, e.g., a prohibition on work on the Sabbath; and Paul's outright deprecation of the same materialism.

[* I am taken with the apparant, but never expressed, orientation of Jesus, namely that he is the king of the Jews incognito, as it were. Consistent with this thesis he roams about helping his countrymen in whatever way he can. The epitome of this conception is his willingness to take the place of Barabbas on the executioner's cross and to die while giving comfort to thieves who were very much of the order of his own betrayer, Judas, whom he deliberately had allowed into his circle of disciples in order to make the point: no Jew might be excluded.**]

[** Continuing this for a moment more, what then alienated him from so many of his countrymen, and especially from the leaders and those who were able to consider things more objectively was his refusal to love the Jews because they were Jews, but rather only because they were people. I.e., while he accepted his charge as savior of the sons of Abraham, he kept in mind that he was doing what he did as savior of the sons of Adam. This was simply unacceptable to the leadership of the Jews for rather obvious reasons. A clue is given in the fact that the gentiles alone were the only ones to see clearly enough to denominate him: King of the Jews.]

In the following I seek to make the logic of this new scheme plain and concise.*

[* This was originally composed as a "Letter to the Editor" of an Atlanta (Georgia, USA) newspaper, but which was not accepted for publication.]

1. It is the clear teaching of Paul, the universally recognized apostle to the Gentiles, that if any man refrain from (or engage in) some activity solely because he thinks it be prohibited (or required) by scriptural law, then that man is a Jew (in a technical sense) and must conform to the entire law of scripture. Hence if a man refuses to engage in murder, for example; or refuses to made a commitment in a possible homosexual relationship solely because of what seems to be a scriptural injunction against such, then that man must send for a Rabbi and seek ritual circumcision, etc. (and this per Galatians generally and also Romans 14 and other passages).

2. This teaching is thoroughly consistent with the characterization of the God-pleasing person on the part of the Lord Jesus (Matthew 7:12), namely: that we are to treat our neighbor as we would want to be treated [and not as Paul or Jesus or even God might want, but as each of us would want.]

3. Further evidence of the human's capacity to make such judgments* is given in Genesis 3:22 where God Himself observes that the human is equal to God with regard to the understanding of right and wrong. [It is worth noting that two people might disagree with regard to the understanding of the effects of some action, but need not for that reason be thought to differ with regard to the sincere intention to love their neighbor [see Romans 14:14-23]; the presumption being that the two would unify their actions, per the same Golden Rule, once they have unified their grasp of causes, i.e., in the area of understanding/science, which is a function of experience and experimentation, e.g., in the dispensing of medicine.]

[* Although it might be questionable as to whether we also possessed the capacity to conform to the requirements of the Golden Rule. This is treated in No. 5 below]

[4. It is only an apparent conflict with this principle that Paul often makes a (Golden-Rule-based) derivation of action which is so plain to him and to his readers that he dispenses with the logic, and simply pronounces the action as though it were original, e.g., murderers have no place in the kingdom of God. But this merely brevity, for he could supply the actual derivation upon demand at anytime, e.g., would you want some one to murder you? etc. Thus the universality of Lord's requirement in Matthew 7:12 is thoroughly honored by Paul, i.e., each person must make his own derivation (from the Golden Rule) and indeed in good conscience (Romans 2:14-16, and 14:22).]

5. Now (as an avowed Wesleyan) I assert (and here I think I remain in the company of the Apostle) that even though we have this divinely asserted capacity to judge right and wrong (at least with regard to our own intentions), we do not naturally have the capacity to conform to our own derived and self-demanded actions of love cheerfully and willingly (for a cost is involved). But since it is impossible to please God (or anyone else for that matter) with a reluctant heart, and since the love-with-abandon that characterizes and is required by the Spirit of Christ (to be pleasing to God) cannot arise naturally, we would be lost except for the fact that Christ died for us as sinners. For if we will simply believe that God loves us [as he showed us with Jesus taking the place of Barabbas, the McVeigh of his day] and be willing voluntarily to open ourselves to his grace (as did Abraham, our spiritual father and model) then God will provide us (albeit only gradually) with the required, eager and willing heart, and we will actually become new creatures not only in mind, but also in the flesh such that we will find it progressively easier and more desirable to love all persons as we love ourselves, i.e., in conformity with the requirements of the Christian faith; that is: we shall begin to love naturally as is required to please God.

6. And finally (to cap what is essentially, I think, a Wesleyan/Franciscan edifice of faith and love) we can easily understand that once we find that we are in fact becoming new creatures, i.e., as we progress toward this greater and easier love (which is called sanctification), we will find ourselves also loving God in responsive and spontaneous conformity with the first of the Two Great Commandments; but now in true freedom; loving God as the one who first loved us, and indeed who pursues us down the byways of our lives and who is never willing to let us go; and whereby then we are able to

"cry with joy unspeakable: 'thou are my Lord, my God'".