Some argue that followers of Jesus don’t need the law. That we follow the Spirit and live by grace. So does this make us anarchists? No. But maybe we could call ourselves anarChrists.
What is the difference?
Anarchist
An anarchist is someone who tries to live without law. They think the government should just get out of their lives, and let them do as they please. Anarchy really doesn’t work in reality, because it simply degenerates into the powerful ruling over the weak.
A lot of Christians think that Jesus was a bit of an anarchist when it comes to the Jewish law. Many of us live and act as if Jesus abolished the law, did away with the commandments, and now all we have to do is live by grace.
To the contrary, Jesus specifically stated that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17). This verse is usually explained away by stating that once Jesus fulfilled the law, it was then done away with.
But this doesn’t do justice to Jesus and what He says.
AnarChrist
In His life, ministry, and teaching, Jesus constantly affirming the law of God as a good and right way of living. He never states that the law is a way of receiving eternal life from God, but constantly shows that the law IS a way of living like residents of the Kingdom of God.
The law, as Jesus explains and applies it in the Gospels, is His vision for humankind. It is not exactly a list of “do’s and don’ts” but a list of “what if’s.” Through His life and teachings, Jesus is asking, “What if we all lived this way? Would the world look different?”
Ultimately, I think that is what the law was for–to show the world what a society could look like if we lived together in peace and unity, with love and forgiveness.
So following Jesus is not about following law. When we think it is, we soon find that we have left Jesus behind, and are now only following a bunch of man-made interpretations of the law. But when we follow Jesus, and don’t worry about the law, we look back after a few years and surprised to learn that He has led us into the fulfillment of the law.
So do you want to follow the law? You can’t do it, so don’t even try. But you can follow Jesus, and in so doing, become an anarChrist and fulfill the law.
So, it sounds like you’re arguing that the law is the way that someone can achieve righteousness without Jesus. But Jesus is the way to righteousness without the law.
a. Follow the law flawlessly and achieve righteousness
b. Follow Jesus and achieve righteousness
Is this a multiple choice question or are you suggesting somekind of a blending of the two as in:
c. All of the above
Be careful…I’m setting a trap.
Honestly, I regretted this post five minutes after posting it. So even I am not sure what it was I was trying to say.
Here was my line of thought: (….anarChrist sounds like anarchist. That’s kind of interesting. How can I make a blog post out of that? Hmmm… this’ll do.)
It didn’t really work.
Anyway, to step into the trap….ummm… I choose (d.) None of the above.
I was trying to say that we gain righteousness by faith in Jesus, not by the law OR by following Jesus, and that the faith in Jesus is the anarchy against the law, which ironically, leads us to follow Jesus and become an anarChrist.
I’m still not sure it makes any sense. But whatever. We’re all heretics anyway, right?
“I was trying to say that we gain righteousness by faith in Jesus, not by the law OR by following Jesus, and that the faith in Jesus is the anarchy against the law, which ironically, leads us to follow Jesus and become an anarChrist.”
I like that. But let me just throw up a jump ball–why do we have to “gain” righteousness? Are we unrighteous by default? And what does “faith in Jesus” mean? And what does “following Jesus” mean? And what is the “law” specifically?
I agree with the quote wholeheartedly. And you should ignore this comment if you think I have an agenda with the questions that I’m asking.
But…I’m worried that we (religiously trained Christians) don’t take the time to “unpack” our language. Look at this blog from a biker’s point of view (I ride a Harley to bike rallies and hang with some Boozefighters so I’m not picking on anyone here). I think the meaningfulness of these conversations are lost on the majority of our audiences. Likewise, I really really think that we get so comfortable with dealing in such heavily “packed” language that we “believe” we have an understanding of the discussion but do not. If we do have an understanding of the conversation then the definitions of these “packed” concepts are subjective and we wind up debating terms like “following Jesus” which means something entirely different to me than it did to my 92 year old grandmother. It also means something very different to me (a closet wannabe biker) than it does to my wife (a bleeding heart liberal).
My take is that all the definitions have merit to some degree. The issue I have with our preconceived religious mindsets is that either we are righteous by the very fact that we are alive or we are righteous by the very fact that we believe in Christ. If it’s the belief that makes us righteous that’s not the same as Christ. Either the belief or the Christ–which one? I don’t claim to know the answer to this question, it’s just a very obvious anomaly in our paradigm that I cannot resolve. I think that paradigm is what you’re playing with in your blog post. It’s a paradigm which is a paradox.
This is the good part: If God is who He says He is then he’s bigger than any of us can possibly fathom. That seems to speak of paradoxes to me. Some say that the concepts of God are stupid because it doesn’t make any sense. I say that God is real because of the paradoxes that have rocked our world since the very beginning of time.
I’m just rambling…too much coffee.
My main disagreement with you is that I don’t think it’s possible to have too much coffee.
Seriously, though, yes, those of us who have been raised and trained in Bible circles do use some heavily packed language. I wish I knew how to unpack it better.
I agree that it is not the belief that makes us righteous. Christ makes us righteous. However, I do think that the belief is a… conduit? catalyst? … I’m not sure what the proper idea might be …. which connects us to the righteousness of Christ.
Coffee 🙂 I consume way too much and sleep fine, just have to learn to get to bed before 3am. Zzzz….
The Law Jesus was referring to (Mosaic Law, which we are “free” from) is not the same as the laws of man, government and the governing authorities (which Anarchists traditionally resist), and Paul and Peter wrote about in Romans 13, and 1 Peter 2:13-21.
Ok, you’d like to be done with this and move on…I get it. Two things I’ve decided for myself:
1. No one can unpack the language so I’ve divorced it. Funny thing happens when you divorce yourself from the “churchy church” lingo…things are much easier to communicate with the unchurched (which is kind of the point, I think). We like to pontificate to one another all day long, but what good is that, really?
2. I’m probably oversimplifying this, but it’s been working for me for 10 years now–I treat the idea of belief, conduct, and obedience as the result of a relationship/partnership with Christ. I’ve gone so long now that the idea of belief as a conduit or catalyst is a matter of cart before horse to me.
Linearly, if law, conduct, or obedience in any way are my entry point to Jesus then I have to give myself some credit in making the deal happen. If Jesus actively grabbing me out of the water is the entry point then it’s all due to him. One of those sounds more likely to me than the other.
The trap I spoke of earlier wasn’t a trap of me knowing the answer or selling you on anything. The trap was one where I can talk about this particular subject indefinitely. However, I’m too polite not to let you off the hook. No need to respond any further. Thanks.
I love interacting on this stuff. I’m not ready to move on…. I was just trying to be funny there with my first comment. My sense of humor is a bit stunted, I guess.