"As I Have Loved You"

Chapter Eight
Some Practical Implications of Christ as
Our Ethical Starting Point

The General Pattern of
New Testament Ethics

In line with the redemptive event/moral demand ("as I have loved you/love one another") pattern we have seen in John 13:34 and 15:12-13, we find this also unfolded from various angles in the Epistles. What we will see in these passages is that by the gospel men are brought into union with Christ, and that "this gospel not only provides the basis of the Christian's moral position, but also defines that position."1

Marriage Relationship,
Ephesians 5:23-25

Having stated the necessity of general submission to one another in Christ (Eph. 5:21), Paul comes to the specific responsibilities of husbands and wives. To press the duty of submission to the husband by the wife, and love to the wife by the husband, the apostle points the couple to the broader relationship of Christ and the church. The headship of Christ over the church, the sacrificial love of Christ for the church, and the willing submission of the church to Christ provide the specific reference points. Notice how the death of Christ for the church is singled out as the underlying foundation: "gave Himself for it . . . . He is the Saviour of the body." Paul believed that "the mere mention of the similarity between the husband/wife and the dying Christ/church relationship is . . . sufficient to convince the readers as to the action they should take."2

Parent/Child Relationship,
Ephesians 6:1

A Christ-centered perspective pervades this whole context: "in the Lord" (6:1); "admonition of the Lord" (6:4); "as unto Christ" (6:6); "to the Lord" (6:7)-, "your Master is in heaven" (6:9). Thus, when Paul cites the fifth commandment in 6:2-3, we cannot isolate it from the unionwith-Christ viewpoint which comes before the citation of Exod- 20:12. The underlying concern is redemption in Christ, and the appropriate lifestyle which flows out of union with the Redeemer.3

Brotherly Relationships (1),
Philippians 2:5

Paul is concerned here to dissuade the brethren from "strife or vainglory," and to encourage them to serve one another (2:3-4). To what does Paul turn to accomplish his purpose? "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" (2:5). The example of Christ in His humiliation stands as the most powerful restraint from self-seeking and the most striking illustration of self-giving. Again, notice how the death of Christ ("as I have loved you") is the reference point. If a contemplation of the mind/action of Christ will not turn us from vainglory, nothing will.

Brotherly Relationships (2),
Romans 15:3

In the context Paul is dealing with things like meat and drink, the use of which was causing differences among the brethren. Paul turns to the example of Christ as that which must cause Christians to do those things which make for peace and edification (14:19): "for even Christ pleased not Himself" (15:3). To be likeminded toward one another is "according to Christ Jesus" (15:5). To "receive one another" is the only possible alternative because Christ's work brought Jews and Gentiles into one body (15:7-12).

Brotherly Relationships (3),
Galatians 5:13-15; 6:2

The basis of a life lived by the faith of the Son of God is that Christ "loved me and gave Himself for me'' (Gal. 2:20). That "first" love of God toward us causes us to love the brethren (I John 4:19; 5:1). It is against this backdrop that Paul directs the Galatians to "serve one another in love" (5:13). The "liberty" of Christians is to be channelled, not to fleshly self-pleasing, but to loving service (5:13). In doing this, "all the law is fulfilled," because we love our neighbor as ourselves. Remember, Paul is combatting false teachers who desire to bring the Galatians "under law." The apostle, therefore, points them to love (which fulfills anything in the law, 5:14) and to the fruit of the spirit (against which there is no law, 5:23).

In Gal. 6:2, then, Paul exhorts them to come under, not the Mosaic yoke (5:1; Acts 15:10), but the "law of Christ.'' This law is fully fulfilled by "bearing one another's burdens." We are, in principle, brought back to John 13:343 5 .The new covenant, ratified by the blood of Christ ("as I have loved you"), brings a new commandment to love one another. The "law of Christ" is clearly sacrificial love--a love which knows no limits or reservations. The "canon" (rule) of the new Israel is "a new creation faith which works by love the keeping of God's commandments" (Gal. 6:15-16; 5:6; I Cor. 7:19). The citations of Old Testament commands come to us, not as bare commandments, but only as contemplated in their relationship to Christ and the new age He has inaugurated.4

Personal Mortification,
Colossians 3:1-5

In Col. 3:1 Paul refers the believer to his resurrection status with Christ. It is in contemplation of this union that positive effort is to be made in seeking first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and that negative effort is to be made against sin. The mortification by the Spirit of the remaining deeds of the flesh can only be accomplished as we consider ("reckon") our vital union with Christ by faith (Rom. 6:11-13; 8:13). Unrighteousness is totally inappropriate for those in union with Christ (Rom. 6:1-2). "In Christ" we are "alive to God," and are now free to serve righteousness.5

Sexual Purity,
I Corinthians 6:20

What perspective does Paul press on the Corinthians to dissuade them from sexual immorality? The death of Christ by which they were purchased. In v. 18 he gives the general admonition to "flee fornication." Their bodies are temples of the Spirit, which renders them "not their own" (v. 19). But the basis of the giving of the Spirit is the death and resurrection of Christ (John 7:39). "You are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body" (v. 20). If Jesus has purchased your body in His awful baptism of agony, how can we possibly use our bodies for immoral purposes since they belong to Him? Such is the apostle's reasoning.

Financial Giving,
II Corinthians 8:9

Many people, unfortunately, are pressured into giving through high-pressure appeals, or threats of God's judgments if they "rob God." However, this is manifestly not Paul's approach to giving. As usual, he points Christians to the example of Christ in His self-giving humiliation: "for you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might be rich" (II Cor. 8:9). "The drawing out of the similarity between a given situation and that of the dying Jesus is again thought to be sufficient incentive to act in the desired way."6 If Christians are captured by the unrestricted giving of Christ, they will give, and give, and give.

Unfortunately, in the history of the church, Christian giving has been equated with a tithing which was based on the Mosaic law and "had only been confirmed and extended by the State." 7 Tithing is a very legal approach to giving. R.J. Rushdoony, in line with his old covenant (Reconstructionist) orientation, states regarding this "duty":

Too few tithe to God. A tithe is a tax paid to the sovereign God: it is His due....... [The tithe] is simply a debt and obligation....... Men know that the state takes very seriously any tax evasion; can they imagine that god is any the less angry when men evade His due tax?8

The Tithing Position Examined

Those who enforce tithing as binding for Christians do so on the basis of very inconsistent argumentation. On the one hand, they admit that the New Testament nowhere enjoins tithing. On the other hand, they posit that the ten percent principle is binding because this was the Old Covenant standard, and therefore continues in the new age. Their basic mistake is that they will not allow the New Covenant  revelation concerning giving to be definitive for determining Christian duty. This same kind of reasoning becomes the essential rationale for enforcing infant baptism and Sabbath-keeping: "The New Testament is obviously silent on these matters, but . . . . "9 This writer submits that only by beginning with a commitment to the New Covenant documents as the revelation of Christian duty will we ever see the dust settle on the theological problematics created by the traditional Reformed hermeneutic of dipping into the Old Covenant for binding law.

John J. Mitchell's article, "Tithing, Yes!," 10   provides an example of the utter inconsistency of the tithing position. He confidently asserts that tithing "is really the key that unlocks our full enjoyment of God's bounty."11

But the futility of Mitchell's position is revealed in the concessions he makes when dealing with the New Testament data. On the one hand, he tries to link I Cor. 16:2 with tithing by saying: "Paul seems clearly to be assuming that his readers already know about regular proportionate giving --tithing, in other words."12 But then he turns around and admits the following two points which destroy the doctrine of tithing:

  1. But Paul does not require any fixed percentage. it is to be proportioned in accord with the degree of prosperity God has given.

  2. For the person on fixed income in this time of raging inflation, it is extra hard to be too dogmatic. Let him give as he is able, but he should feel no guilt if he cannot manage a full tithe--the Lord has not seen fit to prosper him as much as others.13

Thus, in the final analysis, Mitchell concedes that ten percent tithing is not a binding law upon the Christian conscience. No fixed percentage is required in the New Testament, and no guilt is to be incurred if one is not able to tithe. In light of these concessions, his opening remark that ten percent tithing is "the key that unlocks our full enjoyment of God's bounty" is void of real cogency.

R.C. Sproul, one of. the most respected contemporary Reformed theologians, also tries to defend tithing with little success. His explicit admission that the New Testament is silent about tithing nullifies his assertion that the ten percent principle is the binding starting point for believers. How can men impose tithing as "law" when they openly concede the following points?

Nowhere does the New Testament specifically require tithing for Christians . . . . The New Testament does not give us a specific instruction about tithing . . . we have no specific guideline in the New Testament of percentages.14

Tithing misses entirely the motivation for giving found in the New Testament--a love to Christ which is not measured in terms of percentage points, but in terms of sacrificial giving (I John 3:16; 4:19).

Confusion is sure to abound if we do not allow the law of Christ to inform our consciences concerning our duties. This is where those who advocate tithing have gone astray: they are not satisfied to let the New Testament statements regarding giving settle the question. The New Testament clearly reveals that (1) consistent, proportionate, and sacrificial giving out of love for Christ is required under the New Covenant; and (2) ten percent tithing is not given as a reference point, or as a basic minimum, for Christians.

The New Testament reveals that Christians are to be a giving people. The pattern for giving is seen to be regular, proportionate, and sacrificial. Tithing is simply not a reference point for giving now that the old order has passed away. The crucial question, then, is this: are we going to be guided by the New Testament principles for giving, or are we going to bring in an element from a by-gone era--tithing--and impose it on people? Or, to put it another way, are we willing to override the non-tithing perspective of the new covenant by the tithing perspective of the old covenant? The New Testament is not silent on this matter. It teaches that giving from the heart is no longer related to the ten percent principle--and even those who impose tithing on Christians freely admit that "nowhere does the New Testament specifically require tithing for Christians." 15 Yet, they say, if Christians do not tithe they are "stealing from the kingdom of God." 16

A commitment to sound hermeneutics, and honesty with the New Testament revelation demands that we avoid binding the Christian conscience to. tithing. Pieter Verhoef has, with great sensitivity, put his finger on the crux of this issue:

[Tithing] has lost its significance as a schema  of giving under the new covenant. In this respect we have both continuity and discontinuity. The continuity consists in the principle of giving, and the discontinuity [consists] in the obligation of giving in accordance to the schema of tithes.17

The New Covenant and the
Observance of Days

Such matters as the keeping of days, and in particular Sabbath observance, have always been a source of differences and debates among professing Christians. The proper interpretation of Col. 2:16-17 would do much toward resolving these problems. This text will be examined in order to see the centrality of Christ in the new age.

This passage is of singular importance because it reveals some things about Paul's attitude toward issues of importance in the Mosaic economy, about Christians, relationship to these issues, and about the significance of Christ in the former age.

The heresy at Colosse involved a combination of philosophy (centering in gnosticism and asceticism) and Jewish elements. 18 Adventist Bacchiocchi tries to disassociate the reference to "sabbath" in the text from the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment because of this mixture of philosophy and religion.19 However, it is clear that Paul would not designate a philosophic new moon or sabbath observance as a "shadow," the reality of which is Christ. He has in view, therefore, the particularly Jewish institutions which are called "shadows" in the New Testament (Heb. 8:5). This is further substantiated by observing the parallel elements in Isaiah 1:13-14--

Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me; new moons, sabbaths and convocations --I cannot bear your evil convocations. Your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates.

Thus, there can be little question that Col. 2:16 indeed refers to the Jewish Sabbath, which is called in verse 17 a "shadow" of which Christ is the reality. 20 Fairbairn summarizes his understanding of the text by saying:

Thus the distinctively sacred days appointed in the Mosaic law, together with its stated festivals, its distinctions of clean and unclean, and . . . other things of a like outward and ceremonial nature, are here placed in one category, and declared to be no longer binding on the consciences of believers, or needful to their Christian progress. And for this reason, that they were all only shadows of things to come, while the body is Christ . . . they were no more than imperfect and temporary prefigurations of the work He was to accomplish, and the benefits to be secured by it to those who believe; and as such, of course, they fell away when the great reality appeared.

Bandstra further observes regarding the implications of Col. 2:17:

Since the reality is here, the things of the shadow no longer constitute a norm for judgment. Evidently, Paul judges that the Old Testament regulations on food and feast days were not binding for the New Testament church. This was even true of the sabbath commandment, and Paul's negative evaluation soon let to a new interpretation in the early church, namely, that Christians should not observe one day of rest, but that every day should be set aside and dedicated to the Lord . . . . Christ himself gives the reality of rest, of which the sabbath was the shadow. Likewise, Paul speaks of Christ as the true food and drink present in some measure in the old dispensation . . . . Paul's main point in Col. 2:17 is to show that since the reality of Christ is present, the things of the shadow no longer form the norm for judging Christians.21

Fairbairn quotes Dean Alford's opinion that the Sabbath concept, as connected with a day, is no longer of significance under the new covenant: "if the observance of the Sabbath had been, in any form, of lasting obligation on the Christian Church, it would have been quite impossible for the apostle to have spoken thus" in verse 17. 22 However, Fairbairn felt that even though the Sabbath was fulfilled in its "shadow" aspect, its new covenant counterpart is the Lord's Day. 23 He bases this on the alleged parallel of the shadow of circumcision being replaced by baptism in the new age. 24

This brings us back to a more basic hermeneutical question. Are we going to base doctrines on the "silence" of the New Testament? Or will we allow the new covenant revelation to be our guide in all things? For example, Henry Verduin argues in this way to vindicate infant baptism:

There is no direct command in the New Testament to baptise infants. This objection is usually offered with a great deal of gusto as if it settled the whole matter in one sentence. And it sounds very conclusive to a great many people. But the truth of the matter is that it is worth nothing for the settling of the matter at hand. For we who believe in Infant Baptism can match this true statement with an equally true statement with an equally true statement, which runs thus: Neither is there a direct command in the New Testament to withhold baptism from infants . . . . There is no direct command in the New Testament either way. Therefore the question of the validity of Infant Baptism has to be decided on indirect evidence.25

Then, backed by "indirect evidence," he enforces this "command" upon the Christian conscience with great vigor by saying:

Knowing the zeal of the Lord for the holiness of His covenant, we dare not withhold baptism from our little children..... if God says they are in the kingdom we must say so too....... The children of believers are said to be holy..... [to withhold baptism] robs the little lambs of the fold their just rights. And it puts the conscience of parents to sleep. It causes them to think that they have done well by their children when they have done ill by them.26

One can easily see he dangerous progression here from (1) asserting a "truth" based on non-exegetical grounds (when contrary exegetical facts do exist) to (2) imposing it on Christians as "law." This kind of movement will always  tend to move people away from the "canon" found in Gal. 6:15-16.

The New Testament positively speaks of the proper subjects of baptism, namely believers, and also interprets the Sabbath in its relation to Christ. We are not left in total silence on this matter. Since Col. 2:17 tells us that the Sabbath is a shadow of which Christ is the fulfillment, that in the New Covenant age the Sabbath is connected no longer with a day, but with union to the person of Christ. By vital union with Christ we enter into a rest which is enjoyed everyday. Heb. 4:8-11 teaches us that just as Joshua led the people into a physical rest (which many through unbelief did not enter), so Jesus will surely lead His people into the rest (sabbatismos ) that yet awaits them in eternity. Although it is true to say we have begun this rest in union with Christ now, the exhortation of verse 11 places the emphasis on a future rest. Thus, on earth we must labor (persevere) in order to enter the rest that awaits us.

The author who has so much to say about the better hope and the better way of life in the new covenant cannot be understood as enforcing the observance of the Mosaic sabbath. The rest that he speaks of is not a thing they are keeping but something that can be entered (vv. 1, 3, 6, 10, 11) . . . . This rest . . . will be like the keeping of a sabbath. As God in the beginning entered His sabbath, they too will enter theirs--"that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them."27

If the fourth commandment was a shadow, then there is no longer any reason to connect the Sabbath with any day. Just as the typical offerings of lambs were rendered unnecessary by the sacrifice of Christ, so connecting the Sabbath with a day is unnecessary because the reality of the type has come in the person of Christ. Hence, Herman Ridderbos sees the following as an implication of Col. 2:17:

The fact that Paul speaks in this manner concerning the sabbath proves that for him -the fourth commandment of the Decalogue no longer had any abiding significance. In addition, as appears probable, the observance of the first day of the week was not viewed as the New Testament's prolongation of the Old Testament sabbath.28

Many regard Sunday as the "Lord's Day" of Rev. 1:10, or isolate Sunday as a special day in the new covenant based on an alleged one-in-seven principle embedded in the fourth commandment. However, the key texts employed to substantiate Sunday worship (Rev. 1:10; Acts 20:7-11; I Cor. 16:1-3) do not provide an exegetical basis for dogmatism,29  and the identification of Sunday with the "Lord's Day" in Rev. 1:10 does not rest on evidence in the text itself. 30

The New Testament teaches that there are no "holy days" in the new age. Thus, a Christian can view every day as the same, or observe a day to the Lord (Rom. 14:5-6). What is important in the new covenant is that Christians enter into Sabbath-rest through faith in Christ, support one another daily in the faith, and assemble together to exhort one another in the gospel (Heb. 3:12-13; 4:3; 10:24-25).

The New Covenant and the Priesthood
of All Believers

The history of Christian ethics has been old covenant oriented. This fact had its effects on the life of the visible church. With reference to the state, Israel was used as a model for "Christian States," and with reference to the church "the old covenant order of the priesthood was applied more and more exclusively to the one bishop as high priest, and very little stress given to the priesthood of all believers." 31

I Peter 2:5,9

Just as there was a people of God in the old age, so now under the new covenant, there is an "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). But this new people is not national, but spiritual in character--"living stones." That which was typified in geographical Israel has now come to living expression in "a spiritual house, a holy priesthood," which "offers up spiritual sacrifices" (v. 5). This house is built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ (v. 4; I Cor. 3 :11) .

Of special interest to us here is the conception of this family of God as "a holy priesthood . . . a royal priesthood" (vv. 5, 9). Jesus, fulfilled the Old Covenant priesthood, and is building a church in which every "living stone" is a "priest." There were many requirements for the old covenant priesthood, and as a result only a relatively few men functioned in it. But the new covenant priesthood includes all saints.

More importantly, however, is the fact that the old covenant priests had certain functions to constantly perform. Peter focuses on this point: new covenant priests function by offering up "spiritual sacrifices" (v. 5). A non-functioning priesthood is an absurdity! What is included in "spiritual sacrifices" can be seen clearly in such passages as Rom. 12:1, Heb. 13:15-16 and Rev. 5:8.

In Rom. 12:1-8, it is important to see how Paul naturally links our priesthood (v. 1) with our functioning in the local church: "so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us" (vv. 5-6). Not "all members have the same office" (v. 4), but all members are to function in the body (v. 3b). It should also be clear that the functions Paul has in view involve (though not exclusively) the meetings where the church comes together (vv. 6-8).

There are four things with reference to the general priesthood of believers to point out. First, a functioning priesthood is essential and basic to the people of God. Secondly, any church traditions and practices which in their practical outworking squelch the functioning of believers as priests must be rejected.

Thirdly, we must realize that people, not buildings, constitute the "house of God" (I Cor. 3:9). For example, well-meaning parents say to their children, "be quiet and still for we are in the house of God." However, "God's house" must not be identified with any building, for this clouds the fact that Christ's people are a "spiritual house." The old covenant emphasis on places has passed away because the fulfillment of these types has come in a spiritual people (John 4:20-24).

Fourthly, in light of our priesthood, we cannot give credence to the historical "clergy/laity" distinction. Howard Snyder points this out by saying:

The New Testament simply does not speak in terms of two classes of Christians--"minister" and "laymen"--as we do today. According to the Bible, the people (laos, "laity") of God comprise all Christians, and all Christians through the exercise of spiritual gifts have some "work of ministry." So if we wish to be biblical, we will have to say that all Christians are laymen (God's people) and all are ministers. The clergy-laity dichotomy is unbiblical and therefore invalid. It grew up as an accident of church history and actually marked a drift away from biblical faithfulness . . . . It is one of the principal obstacles to the Church effectively being God's agent of the Kingdom today because it creates the false idea that only "holy men," namely, ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for leadership and significant ministry.32

The New Testament, indeed, makes a distinction between leaders and people (I Thess. 5:12-13). But this distinction assumes the priesthood of believers, and does not swallow it up as the "clergy/laity" practice has in the past.

The Pattern of Christ and the
Christian Lifestyle

The core of Christ's ethic is found in what is called the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1-7:29). it is upon these principles that the Christian must build his life (Matt. 7:24). This Sermon probably served as a catechism for converts in the early church,33 and had a special place in redemptive history.

It seems likely (as many commentators ancient and modern have suggested) that he deliberately went up on the mountain to teach, in order to draw a parallel between Moses who received the law at Mount Sinai and himself who explained its implications to his disciples on the so-called "Mount of the Beatitudes," the traditional site of the Sermon on the northern shores of the Lake of Galilee. For, although Jesus was greater than Moses and although his message was more gospel than law, yet he did choose twelve apostles as the nucleus of a new Israel to correspond to the twelve patriarchs and tribes of the old. He also claimed to be both teacher and lord, gave his own authoritative interpretation of Moses' law, issued commandments and expected obedience. He even later invited his disciples to assume his "yoke'' or submit to his teaching, as they had previously borne the yoke of Torah.34

Hence, in these core-teachings we have "the substance of the New Law, the New Sinai, [and] the New Moses." 35

Compared to the lifestyle of the world, the outlook Jesus presents is radical. These are not idealistic standards, but attainable only by those "in Christ." 36 But central in approaching the Sermon on the Mount is that these principles are only outworkings of faith-attachment to Jesus Christ.

Thus the followers of Jesus are to be different-different from both the nominal church and the secular world, different from both the religious and the irreligious. The Sermon on the Mount is the most complete delineation anywhere in the New Testament of the Christian counter-culture. Here is a Christian value-system, ethical standard, religious devotion, attitude to money, ambition, life-style and network of relationships--all of which are totally at variance with those of the non-Christian world. And this Christian counter-culture is the life of the kingdom of God, a fully human life indeed but lived out under the divine rule . . . . They were not to take their cue from the people around them, but from him, and so prove to be genuine children of their heavenly Father. To me the key text of the Sermon on on the Mount is 6:8: "Do not be like them."37

Several key areas can be briefly isolated in which Christians are not to act like those in the world, and tend to forget their responsibilities before Christ.

Christians are to Take Interpersonal
Relationships Seriously
(Matt. 5:21-24; Matt. 7:1-5)

Hatred, which leads to overt murder, begins in the heart. The world allows hatred to fester internally. But Jesus teaches His disciples to constantly deal with breaches in human relationships by going to the necessary parties (Matt. 18:15-18).

Day by day, week by week, Christians ought to be dealing with interpersonal problems so that they do not pile up . . . . Scripture places a premium on living on a daily basis with God; it makes daily dealing with our brothers an urgent matter . . . . You don't dare let things go. If there is somebody with whom you are having difficult times or who is having difficulty with you, before this day is over straighten out the matter before God. Write that letter make that phone call, or if possible pay that visit.38

Christians are to Leave Vengeance with God
(Matt. 5:38-39; Luke 6:29; Rom. 12:17-21)

The world lives by the "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" principle, but Christians are not to avenge themselves or render evil for evil. Instead, they are to reciprocate evil actions with kind actions.

In the world-at-large, even in America, 39 violence is an established pattern in life. This is one area, unfortunately, where the sinful cultural outlook is "changing and shaping the Christians" more than the Christians are challenging their cultural surroundings. 40 And yet it is by a lifestyle committed to nonviolence that will most pointedly minister to a culture given to accomplishing things by force (Rom. 12:20-21).

The point to be emphasized is that Christ teaches that the way to overcome evil is by the principle of nonretaliation. Interestingly, even secular studies which compared various "power-coercive" forms of changing human system with "non-violent" approaches found the latter to be the most effective in the long run. 41

Christians are to Manifest Unconditional Love toward People
(Matt. 5:43-48; Luke 6:32-36)

Nothing characterizes "normal', human existence more than conditional relationships: "I will care for you if you care for me." Jesus, however, calls His people to display concrete kindness even to those who hate, misuse, curse and persecute them.

God Himself is the reference point in this matter (Matt. 5:48). He shows kindness to those who hate Him (Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35).

We can stop loving only the lovable, lending to the reliable, giving only to the grateful, as soon as we grasp and are grasped by the unconditionality of the benevolence of God.42

In a day when people are used to conditional relationships, the body of Christ has a unique opportunity to manifest a different spirit.

Christians are to be a Giving People
(Matt. 5:40-41; Luke 6:30, 35, 38)

Our society operates on the principle of "What can I give in order to get more?" This flows naturally out of conditional relationships. On the contrary, Jesus' disciples are to freely give and extend themselves with no hope or concern for acknowledgement or return. "Giving" marked God's action and Christ's ministry more than anything else (John 3:16; Matt. 20:28), and this explains why Christians are to be known as a people who share with others with no strings attached.

Christians are to Work for Peace
(Matt. 5:9; Rom. 12:18; Heb. 12:14; I Pet. 3:11)

One of the central aspects of Christ's work was to bring peace in human relationships (Eph. 2:14-15; Col. 1:20). It is only as people are brought into a right relationship with God in the gospel that healed relationships among men can occur.

The world is characterized by strife and power-politics. Jesus' kingdom brings peace, and His people are to work for peace "in the community and the church. 43 To pursue peace in most cases carries with it the inevitability of confrontation in order to effect reconciliation. Genuine peace ("shalom"), therefore, is never realized by skirting Biblical duties and principles.

Paul is not so much concerned about the existence of disputes among Christians, as he is with how disputes are resolved . . . . Resolution of disputes among believers, then, is a matter of first-rate ecclesiastical significance . . . . We must move ministries of peace from the periphery of Christian concern to the center where they belong.44

In light of the threat of nuclear war to the world-at-large, there is a clear need for Christians to work for peace in this regard. Since nuclear war can in no way be construed as a "just war" (for it destroys the aggressor and probably the defender), Norman Geisler suggests that the Christian must be a "nuclear pacifist" with regard to an "all out nuclear war."45 There is certainly some appropriate peacemaking response due from the church in this regard.46

Christians are to Expect Suffering and Persecution
(Matt. 5:10-12; Luke 6:22-23)

Following Christ involves following the pattern He experienced in redemptive history. First He suffered and then He was glorified in the resurrection (Luke 24:26, 46; John 7:39; I Pet. 1:11). Likewise, Christians suffer in this present evil age and are glorified at His second coming (Rom. 8:17-18; I John 3:2; Titus 2:12-13; II Tim. 3:12; John 16-33; Acts 14:22; Col. 1:24).

One of the most basic marks, then, of the church in -this age is her experience of suffering in a hostile environment (John 15:18-19). This fact is important for it outlines the essential stance of the church in culture: a minority counter-culture in the midst of an unbelieving majority-culture.

We ought not to be stranger to alienation, minority status, even exile. Indeed, significant voices from other segments of the American church . . . have recently urged that exile must be the posture for the faithful Christians today.47

To enunciate triumphalistic notions about the church "taking over" society, to work for a "Christian consensus" to guide society, or to envision a time before Christ's second coming when the church will dominate culture (and thus be unpersecuted) is contrary to the ordained pattern of Christ in redemptive history: suffering then glory.

The New Covenant People and Politics

There is no direct command in the New Testament for Christians to influence or change political institutions. There is no political agenda given to the church by Christ.

The command in the New Testament is for the church to pray for those in authority (I Tim. 2:1-2). Apparently, but not surprisingly, prayer is the Christians' greatest channel of influencing government. Why? Because Christians speak to the One who holds the king's heart in His hand (Prov. 21:1).

A goal is isolated in I Tim. 2:2--l'that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." A tranquil civil environment! The church has rarely enjoyed such tranquility. Christians in America know more about such civil peace that most Christians in history past ever have.

In America, Christians have a unique situation, unparalleled in human history. Citizens in this country can legally take part in the governmental process. Christians are in a position to speak to the powers. As they have opportunity, they have the responsibility to so speak.

What is the goal in confronting the state? Should we bother speaking out? It is crucial to think through these questions. So much Christian political activity is unclear concerning goals. Or, if goals are stated, the presuppositions behind them are dubious.

In all things, we must-- take into account the final revelation of God in Christ (Heb. 1:1). People as people are not neutral; they are rejecting the new covenant revelation. When those in the new covenant speak to "Caesar," though, they must have in mind the welfare of the total citizenry.

The foundation of our appeal, then, begins with people as people as they are related to the Adamic-Noahic framework.

However, the church cannot be content in just appealing to the state to do what appears to be "right." Wrapped up in witness to the state is an evangelistic call to trust in Jesus. History did not stop with the Noahic covenant! The last Adam has come and commands all men everywhere to repent.

The revelation of God's will in Christ informs us of both the creation order ("in the beginning," Matt. 19:9), and the redemptive order ("in the beginning was the Word . . . the Word was made flesh," John 1:1, 14). Hence, Christians do not at all compromise Christ's will in confronting the state with the creation order. Christ Himself answered the Pharisees by going back to the wav it was at creation.

One important point flowing out of these facts is that Christians can freely confront the powers without connecting their pleas to a mandate to make the state "Christian." Historically, confusion and hurt have come whenever the attempt was made to impose the redemptive order upon the societal order by civil legislation.

In any culture, the church is not a moral majority, but a believing minority. The Christian community acts, as did Gideon's little band, from a base of (human) powerlessness--- yet is backed by the power of God's Spirit.

Being within our culture, the church is a voice. She must expectantly express herself along with all the other voices. She may or may not be heard.

Christians who enter into nonviolent witness strive to reach the humanness of those who wield power; they can appeal to the recognized norms of justice in society; they plead, hoping for the right act; they seek to mediate some sense of the hidden Lordship of Jesus. . . . No government as such has God's backing, but Christians in their relations to the governing authorities have the backing of His norms for government (in Rom. 13). This stance toward authorities is a main aspect- of the endeavor to "overcome evil with good." The Book of Acts records various instances in which Christians with forthright expectancy and an appeal to recognized norms won authorities over to a right decision.48

Christians must be discerning and impartial in what they isolate as "issues" in our fallen culture. One of the tragedies of Christian action in the past is that it has gone after relatively petty issues and glossed over some important ones.49

Christians must not force the graceless majority culture to live like Christians. A major problem of past "Christian" societies is that they produce an outward (hypocritical) adherence to prescribed religious standards. The evangelistic goal is to see men changed inwardly, and a civil goal is to maintain a tranquil environment in which men can carry out their cultural functions.

Reconstructionist Kevin Craig submits that "the character of civil government should be explicitly Christian, and non-Christians should act like Christians, even if they don't think like Christians."50 He never faces the problematic created when a citizenry must conform to Christian standards without the grace of God. 51

Christians must not use physical force in their ministry to the majority culture. Tragically, the success of visible Christianity from Constantine onwards was achieved by the use of force and coercion.

K.S. Latourette, a very Christian historian, has to admit that "However incompatible the spirit of Jesus and armed force may be..... as a matter of plain history the latter has often made it possible for the former to survive." It was the temporal sword that made Christianity a world religion . . . . Where Christianity failed to gain or retain the backing of state power, it achieved neither a wide nor a permanent hold.52

With great consistency, today's Reconstructionists are encouraging violence and persecution as a part of gospel righteousness. David Chilton believes

that an excellent addition to the Christian school curriculum would be a class on the use of firearms . . . in a world of sin, we will never have peace so long as the only ones who have the artillery are the bad guys . . . . It would be a powerful restraint on the wrath of the ungodly if even the youngsters in every Covenant home were widely known to be skilled in the use of weapons, willing and able to blow the belt buckles off any prospective marauder.53

In James Jordan's projection of what a "Christian nation" would be like, non-Christian religions could be practiced privately, but not practiced or promoted publicly. And they could not meet on Sundays. In fact, Jordan says, "I suggest that in a Christian society..... the death penalty is still appropriate for the crime of worshipping another god on the Lord's Day."54

The time has come to acknowledge that any "Christianity" that needs a sword to ensure its permanence, and that promises peace only when the "good guys" have the artillery, is not Christianity.

We must not manifest hatred toward our enemies. The very liberal Overstreet observe that Fundamentalists select "those aspects of the Old Testament that give them permission to be exclusive and to hate their enemies." 55

When Ian Paisley was refused entrance into the U.S.A., angry Bob Jones, Jr., urged the B.J.U. students in a chapel message:

I hope you'll pray that the Lord will smite him [Alexander Haig, then Secretary of State] hip and thigh, bone and marrow, heart and lungs and all there is to him that He shall destroy him quickly and utterly. 56

Christians must not view America as an "Israel." Israel was a type. Its fulfillment has come: Christ came as the obedient Israel, and the church is now the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). To view any nation as "elect" is a mistake. A person wrote Christianity Today  and said:

Concerning the new SALT [treaty]: the Scriptures teach that God-fearing nations should not make agreements with God-opposing governments. The history of Israel is an example to us. God will vindicate his chosen ones, who cry unto him day and night.57

The "Israel" mentality has always had the effect of absolutizing one's nation and its "cause." For example, we read in The Soldiers Catechisme  (1644 by Robert Ram):

Q. What side are you of?.....

A. I am for King and Parliament: or in plaine terms: I fight to recover the King out of the hands of a Popish Malignant Company . . . . I fight in defence and maintenance of the true Protestant Religion. . . . God now calls upon us to avenge the blood of his Saints.58

Christians must not view contemporary Israel as God's chosen nation. Many evangelicals and fundamentalists believe that whatever Israel does is right, and that it is categorically wrong to go against her. Consequently, Bible believers try to dissuade our government from ever rebuking Israel. Jerry Falwell summarizes this doctrine:

God deals with nations in relation to how those nations deal with the Jew. History is replete with illustrations of people who have touched the apple of God's eve.59

However, the New Testament reveals that the church is the apple of God's eye and that He brings judgment on those who mistreat His elect on earth. But Falwell says that "to stand against Israel is to stand against God." 60 To him, there are only two reasons why America now exists, and one of them is "for the protection of his people, the Jews." 61

Jack Chick's illustrated tract, Support Your Local Jew , confidently informs us that the reason why nine African nations are engulfed in famine is because "they had all broken diplomatic relationships with Israel." Also, we are told that "God has cursed England! She is finished as a major power . . . . Because she crossed the Jews." As long as this presupposition undergirds evangelical/fundamentalist political endeavor, confusion will reign.

It is interesting to note the centrality on Israel in both the Christian Right and Reconstructionism. Christian fundamentalists absolutize the nation of Israel, while the Reconstructionists absolutize the law of Moses. Fundamentalists resurrect Israel in the future, while Reconstructionists want to see her law implemented in this age.

Christians must not equate their liberty in Christ with any tenuous civil liberty. Often II Cor. 3:17--"where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty"--is quoted with reference to civil liberty. But the text has nothing to do with liberty as a human being. It has to do with new covenant liberty. This liberty Christians possess regardless of -the government that they are under, and no government can take away their liberty in Christ (while ---hey certainly might limit our civil liberty).

Christians must allow for liberty when it comes to political convictions. There are believers who do not wish to participate in civil matters. Others give the civil realm a high priority. Each believer must be allowed to hold his convictions before the Lord. That does not mean that Christians cannot interact with one another about these matters; it just means that they need not judge one another.

Further, when times of radical crisis come we can expect Christians to differ as to what they must do. Some may feel that they must flee. Others may stay. Christ must be trusted to guide His flock in these difficult situations.

There are creative ministries Christians can be involved in at,the local, state and national levels. The amount of time and energy Christians can spend in various projects, of course, will vary. Some, like Senator Mark Hat--field, may give most of their efforts to the political process. He admits that it is tough to function as a Christian in Washington. The best others may be able to do is write occasional letters to various officials to express their views.

Many other Scriptures could be examined to trace the "as I have loved you..... therefore" theme in the New Testament. But those that have been New Testament covered indicate how this theme relates to a wide range of practical duties and relationships. Further, they establish the central point under consideration those in union with Christ respond to the loving cross-work by a life of loving service.

1) Bruce Kaye, "Law and Morality in the Epistles of the New Testament," Law, Morality and the Bible  (Downers Grove: IVP), p. 74.

2) Dennis Winter, "Motivation in Christian Ethics," Law, Morality and the Bible , p. 211.

3) Kaye, p. 75.

4) Herman Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus  (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishers, 1958), p. 284.

5) Rom. 6:11, 18, 22; Anthony Hoekema, A Christian Looks at Himself  (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 49-53.

6) Winter, p. 212.

7) H.F. Jacobson, "Tithes," Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge , IV (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 18 3), p. 2364.

8) R.J. Rushdoony, "Tipping," Chalcedon Report , April 1982 .

9) Raymond Zorn, "Review of The Law and the Prophets," Westminster Theological Journal , XXXVII:2, 1975, p. 294.

10) John J. Mitchell, "Tithing, Yes!," Presbyterian Guardian , October 1978, pp. 6-7.

11) Mitchell, p. 6.

12) Mitchell, p. 7.

13) Mitchell, p. 7.

14) R.C. Sproul, "What about Tithing?," Tabletalk , 3:5, 1979, p. 10.

15) Sproul, p. 10.

16) Sproul, p. 10.

17) Pieter Verhoef, "Tithing--A Hermeneutical Consideration , " The Law and the Prophets , John Skilton, ed. (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974), p. 127.

18) Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday  (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1977), p. 346.

19) Bacchiocchi, pp. 346, 368.

20) Patrick Fairbairn, The Revelation of Law in Scripture  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), p. 472; A.J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of-Paul's Theology  (Kampen- J.H. Kok, 1964), pp. 90-93.

21) Bandstra, pp. 92-93.

22) Quoted by Fairbairn, p. 473.

23) Fairbairn, p. 474.

24) Fairbairn, p. 474.

25) Henry Verduin, "Baptism," The Reformation Sentinel , 1:1, 1977, pp. 17-18.

26) Verduln, pp. 23-24.

27) Neil Lightfoot, Yesterday, Today, Forever  (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), p. 97.

28) Quoted by Bandstra, p. 92, note 79.

29) Bacchiocchi, pp. 90-131.

30) D. Vincent Price, "Searching for the Imperative: Interaction with Lord's Day Argumentation," Searching Together  9:4, 1980, pp. 13, 20.

31) Judy Schindler, "The Rise of One-Bishop-Rule in the Early Church," Searching Together , 10:2, 1981, p. 5.

32) Howard Snyder, The Community of the King  (Downers Grove: IVP, 1977), pp.

33) John H. Yoder, The Original Revolution  (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1977), p. 35.

34) John R.W. Stott, Christian Counter-Culture: The Message of the Sermon on the Mount  (Downers Grove: IVP,1978), p. 20.

35) Stott, p. 21.

36) Stott, p. 29.

37) Stott, pp. 19, 18.

38) Jay Adams, Christian Living in the Home  (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972), pp37-38; Ronald Kraybill, Repairing the Breach: Ministering in Community Conflict  (Akron, Pa.: Mennonite Central Committee, 1981), pp. 53-71.

39) Thomas Rose, ed., Violence in America (New York: Random House, 1969).

40) Jim Wallis, "Carl Henry on Evangelical Identity," Sojourners , April 1976, p. 25.

41) Robert Chin and Kenneth Benne, "General Strategies for Effecting Changes in Human Systems," Organization Development , Wendall French et al., eds. (Dallas: Business Publications, 1978), pp. 94-111.

42) Yoder, p. 47.

43) Stott, p. 50; Jean-Michel Hornus, It is not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes toward War, Violence, and the State  (Scottdale, a.: Herald Press,1980), for a significant study on how the early church took this mandate seriously.

44) Kraybill, pp. 12-13.

45) Norman Geisler, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), p. 176.

46) Ronald J. Sider and Richard K. Tavlor, Nuclear Holocaust and Christian hope: A Book for Christian Peacemakers  (Downers Grove: IVP, 1982).

47) J.R. Burkholder and John Bender, Children of Peace  (Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite Publishing House, 1982), p. 22; Mark McCulley, "Exile or Conquest? Power-Seeking and the New Puritans," Searching Together , 11:4, 1982, pp. 20-33.

48) Dale Aukerman, The Darkening Valley  (New York: Seabury Press, 1981), p. 99.

49) Franklin Littell, "Protestant Use of State Power," From State Church to Pluralism  (New York: Macmillan, 1970), co. 142-148.

50) Kevin Craig, "Social Apologetics," Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Culture  (Tyler, Tx.: Geneva Divinity School, 1982), p. 47.

51) Joseph Haroutunian, Piety Versus Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology  (New York: Holt, 1932).

52) Eric Hoffer, The True Believer  (New York; Harper, 1951), P. 100.

53) David Chilton, The Biblical Educator  (Tvler, Tx.: March 1982).

54) James Jordan, The Geneva Papers  (Tyler, Tx.: July 1982).

55) Harry and Bonaro Overstreet, The Strange Tactics of Extremism  (New York: Norton and Co., 1965), p. 145.

56) San Jose News , April 2, 1982, p. 7A.

57) Christianity Today , May 8, 1981, p. 9.

58) Lowell Zuck, ed., Christianity and Revolution , II, Temple University Press, 1977, p. 230.

59) Los Angeles Times , September 22, 1982, p. 12.

60) Jerry Falwell, The Fundamentalist Phenomenon  (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), p. 215.

61) An Interview with the Lone Ranger of Fundamentalism," Christianity Today , September 4, 1981, p. 25.