How Can We Fulfill a Law We Break?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says,

‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Then, if you know the rest of the story, Jesus goes on to break all sorts of laws (healing on the Sabbath, claiming to be divine, turning tables over in the Temple, ignoring his mother’s requests, etc.). How can someone say they came to fulfill the law while simultaneously break it?

To obey the law means actions are directed by an outside or external things that forces compliance. For instance, if I do not pay my taxes the government will fine me. There is force that is outside or external to me that I am really responding to. If the external force was not present, then there is a likelihood that I would not obey the law. This is also why I all slow down when I drive by a police officer, but will speed up once I feel I am “at a safe distance.”

Fulfilling the law is different. Fulfilling the law comes by indirectly obeying the law.

Take the above examples, if I were to pay my taxes out of my internal delight, I am not paying them out of fear that I will be punished by some outside force. Rather, when I pay my taxes out of a personal choice, I am fulfilling the law, but not considering (thinking about the consequences) the law. If I were a person who loves to go the speed limit because I think don’t want to rush or if I think that driving slower is just more pleasurable, then I will not go over the speed limit. I am indirectly following the law.

Sometimes what looks like obeying the law, is really fulfillment of the law. And sometimes what looks like breaking the law is also fulfilling the law.

Jesus fulfilled the law, even as he breaks them.

For instance, not working on the Sabbath was a law. There was punishment if you did not obey the law. But this law was put into place in order to keep people from being abused and overworked. It was a law meant to protect people from being treated as objects. So when Jesus healed on the sabbath, yes he broke the law but in doing so the law was fulfilled. The law was intended to humanize people but was used to objectify people. As Jesus humanizes those he healed on the Sabbath, he broke the popular interpretation of the law, but fulfilled the law in full.

As you can see, It is much easier to obey than it is to fulfill the law. Because sometimes obeying the law means breaking it, and breaking the law often comes with consequences. The question Jesus poses to us is do we desire to fulfill the law or only obey it?

We All Have Bought A $120,000 Banana

If art is anything, it is provocative. For anyone who has ever looked at a bit of art and thought, “My kindergartner can paint that! Why don’t you give her $120,000 for her play-doe sculpture?” you are not alone.

Recently humanity lost our collective mind over a banana duct taped to a wall that sold for $120,000. There are many memes to thought pieces on this bit of art. Some believe it to be brilliant. Some find it crazy, others find it immoral and still others wonder what sort of world do we have when people cannot pay for their medical bills while others buy a $120,000 banana.

It is an easy target to throw stones at. It sounds insane that anyone would buy this much less anyone else call it art. We wonder what rich person could possibly have such a cold hart to waste money in this way. We wonder why the wealthy are putting more money to art than towards social services, charity or the common good. We see this bit of art as a proxy for all that is wrong with the millionaires and billionaires of the world. Then, when we hear the buyer of this banana ate the banana we just melt into madness!

Beyond how you feel about this specific banana and duct tape, the purchase, or the people involved I want to remind us that we all have bought a $120,000 banana.

We all have spent money on fleeting things (fast fashion?). We all have justified our expenses on things over using our money for the common good (don’t we all need three winter coats?). We all have bought into consumerism and purchased things just because everyone is a twitter about them (fidget spinners anyone?) We all have bought things that others disprove of (you have seen the National Inquire, right?). We all feel justified in our decisions and condemn others’ (I am improving the value of my home with these updates, you are wasting your money on buying a boat.).

We may not have signed a check for the same dollar amount, but we all have bought our version of the $120,000 banana.

No matter how we feel about this banana it reveals to us that we are no better or worse than the one “wasting their money” on a banana. We all feel justified with our own actions. We all feel like others are the problem.

I am thankful that we know the name of the couple who bought the banana. At least they are not hiding behind anonymity and are willing to publicly face the very questions we all should be asking ourselves every day.

Doctrine. I have been doing it wrong.

Doctrine in the Church is important. I am a fan. The doctrines of the Church have helped me better understand the nature of sin, the salvific work of Jesus Christ, the function of the Holy Spirit and how the Church is to be in relationship with the world. I am going back to school in fact to study doctrine, specifically the doctrines come out of the late antiquity period.

In my studies thus far I have discovered something about doctrine that has deeply affected how I understand that conversations around doctrine. I am embarrassed that I had not seen this before, and in many ways am disappointed in myself for not seeing it sooner.

So what is the discovery? Here it is:

Doctrine is the point of entry.

That is it. Doctrine is the point of entry into the conversation and understanding of the Christian faith. So why is this “discovery” worth noting? It is because I the primary problem I have had with theologians who cite doctrine is doctrine is used as a point of arrival.

It is like when you have a math book in school and all the answers are in the back of the book. There are many ways to get to the solution that is provided in the back of the book, but what is important is that you get the correct answer. Doctrines are often treated as an answer in the back of the book, and you can have many ways to get there, but ultimately you have to come to already stated position.

For example, Christians have a doctrine of the virgin birth. There are many people who will work to prove this doctrine, because the doctrine is the point of arrival - not the point of entry. When doctrines are points of arrival, then we have to defend and prove them. When doctrines are points of entry then we discover more than the doctrine teaches.

If the virgin birth is not the point of arrival, but the point of entry then the questions change. Rather than asking “how did the virgin birth happen?”, we get to ask “what sort of claim is being made about Jesus through the doctrine of the virgin birth?” Oddly enough when I ask the second question, I come to a deeper understanding of God in Jesus than I do when I just search for reasons to justify the virgin birth.

Doctrines are important, because they invite the disciple to enter into the transforming story of God. The irony is when we insist doctrines are the point of arrival, many discover those same doctrines as their point of exit.

Boundary Confusion In The UMC

Boundaries and Barriers

Within the UMC there is much talk on line about the role of boundaries. There are some who consider the election of Bishop Oliveto a breach in the boundaries of the Book of Discipline. There are others who feel that the organization of the Wesley Covenant Association is a breach of boundaries. The interesting thing to me is that both groups are correct - these are a break in boundaries. What is sometimes missed in all the discussion (including in my own thinking) over these broken boundaries is we may be confusing boundaries for barriers.

Boundaries are those things that are set up to guide and protect. They are generally good things to follow. For instance, if you see a line on the road, it is generally a good idea to not cross it. Boundaries also have a flexibility built into them that makes them easier to uphold in our lives. Sticking with the road metaphor, those lines can be redirected and even redrawn to accommodate wider vehicles or road construction. Boundaries are not the same as barriers because boundaries have an appropriate permeability to them.

Barriers are not permeable. These are like those concrete walls put on the side of the road to ensure that no one can cross over them. Barriers not only protect us from harm but also cause harm if violated. Which is why barriers are more obstructive and obstructive than boundaries. It seems that at the heart at some of the matters in the UMC, there is confusion on what is a boundary and what is a barrier.

Jesus ran into this when he was confronted by the religious leaders of his time. He was told that he was violating laws which they saw as barriers but Jesus saw as boundaries. You should not eat on the Sabbath was a barrier to some but a boundary to Jesus. God, not man, can forgive sin was a barrier for some but a boundary for Jesus. Death was a barrier for some but Jesus shows us it is boundary. 

Boundaries are important to be sure, but they are not the same as barriers. While both are designed with protection in mind, it seems like we are in the deepest mess when we confuse boundaries and barriers. 

(Update note - Thank you to W.J. who helped point out my own confusion in the original post where I mislabeled boundaries and barriers. It just goes to show that even when we think about it, there can be boundary confusion.)