Legalism vs. Syncretism--Neither Works

A pastor in our church has, as one of his teaching themes, the way we as Christians live into the Kingdom of God while dealing with the issue of our dual citizenship with the world. The specific issue of the class he is teaching right now springs from the recent US elections (Kim, wasn't that sensitive of me? not to say "the recent elections"?) and the inability of Christians to deal with one another when what is "clear" to one is not "clear" to the other. This is very brave of him, I think. I think the very fact that he is offering this class shows that he is relying on the King of the Kingdom of God more than on the rulers of this world. The subject matter can be expanded, I think, to why Christians can't discuss things within the church as well, without the same result. Sad, but true.

I missed the first week, but he talked about how there are three theological truths we live into: First, that we have a uniform confession: Jesus is Lord. Second, that we have an over-all-of-us authority: the Holy Scriptures. Third, a uniform constraint: the humility inherent in seeking the mind of Christ.

Today he talked about the two responses we tend to see: legalism and syncretism. Both lead to broken relationship because neither addresses in relationship those who do not agree with the rules of legalism or the all-acceptance of syncretism. In legalism, you can't have discussions, because the rules are already there, and if we will just all follow them, we will be fine, so just do it, I don't care about what you think. And syncretism doesn't allow for discussions because all ideas are valuable, how stupid to have discussions of the merits of any of them as if that would make things any clearer, so sure, say your idea, put it in the melting pot and then just be quiet.

These are very helpful ideas to me in thinking about disputes that arise in my own life. It seems like we in the modern age cannot discuss *anything* anymore--that if someone disagrees, the other takes offense and it has become a crime to cause anyone to be offended. I remember my parents having, um, *lively* discussions at their bridge group--they were not more uniform politically than the large middle of today's society (neither were they members of the Weather Underground...). But even after a rowdy disagreement, and maybe a couple of days to cool down, they were right back together as friends over coffee, as babysitters, singing in the choir at church...truly able to disagree and love one another. The sad thing is that the culture itself has even driven a wedge into this group--people have stopped coming together, and have started insulting each other (after 50+ years together) as though there was not a person in there. I wonder if the theological truths have been forgotten by those who are the biggest troublemakers, if it is more important to be right than righteous, conformed to a political belief system than transformed into something bigger than the system at all.

I wonder about them because I have never had what they had, and to see them losing it makes me wonder if it is to be had at all anymore--the ability to have lively discussions, even aruguments, without their becoming disputes and breaches of relationship.

The letter to the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2 is the text for looking at this week's study. The church at Ephesus represents the legalists--who think things through and go to a foundation of scripture for their beliefs...but lose the love underlying the Great Commandmnet--and the Nicolaitans, who were those who believed pretty much that anything goes, the syncretists. Jesus commends the Ephesians for standing for something--but tells them that without love, they will no longer be the church. And he commends their hating the "anything goes" attitude *because he hates it, too." So I will have to go to class next week to figure out more how this goes.

We are not a small group as Sunday Schools go, but this seems like a drop in the bucket to increasing the ability to dialogue. But it is a drop in the bucket.