Splitting Hairs

What do we think we know about the Law and Grace, and do we know enough to differentiate between the two? Or is it, as I suspect, that the two are one and the same? I often wonder how many hairs have been split since the time of Christ so much so that we have finally reached a point where we simply make things up as we go in our continuing efforts to justify ourselves, and doctrine that has the potential to fully inform our sense of theology gets completely fouled up to the point of irrelevancy.

One case in point involves the difference between “transubstantiation” (literal presence) and “real presence” as it pertains to the Eucharist. They both mean essentially the same thing and both hold fast to the words of Jesus who proclaimed that “when two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there …” Whether He is “literally” there or “really” there is a serious splitting of hairs and does nothing more than to highlight a dispute which has existed for centuries.

Another case in point is the current argument in the UMC in which a Study of Ministry proposal has determined that Local (licensed) Pastors should not be consecrating the elements of the Eucharist, preferring instead to have an ordained elder bless the elements but allow the LP to deliver. One argument for the proposal, in order to address logistical concerns, suggests that Local Pastors be ordained as Local Elders to resolve the “problem”. Well, I am licensed and appointed by the Conference, by the Bishop, and by the Cabinet. What has not happened is that a bishop has not put his hands on my head, and this will not likely happen unless or until I graduate from a seminary. So by another splitting of the hairs, somehow calling me an “elder” rather than a “pastor”, presumably without changing anything else other than the bishop’s hands, will make all the difference in the world as to the nature of the Eucharist and the effectiveness of my prayer to ask the Lord to bless them. I will reserve further comment on this one lest I miss making my point.

In either case, we split hairs when we take exception to a particular terminology while overlooking the essential elements of a concept. I think this is where we are when we talk about the Law and try to wade through St Paul’s seeming arguments AGAINST the Law in favor of grace. Truth be told, I have always had a hard time understanding what Paul means when he writes about “the works of the Law”.

In Galatians 2:15-16, he almost seems to contradict himself. Notice that he uses his “Jewishness” to distinguish himself from “Gentile sinners” while referring to his “knowledge” as a Jew “that a person is justified not by the works of the law…”, but how can he – in the same statement as a Jew – refer to “faith in Christ”?

It seems to me that we go back into that “splitting of hairs” when we insist that we are “not under the law”, yet still revere the so-called Ten Commandments, a direct reference to THE LAW, that “document” which demands our obedience. Jesus Himself reminds us that He “did not come to do away with the Law …” yet we also, by our doctrines, know Jesus as grace personified even while Jesus refers to Himself as “the law fulfilled”.

It may also be telling that while we would continue to insist that we are “not under the law” but would continue to fight with our state and federal legislators in insisting that the “ten commandments” be upheld by force of law.

“If you love Me, keep My commandments.” In the Gospel of John (14:15), Jesus makes a direct reference to “commandments” but the answer we get from asking which commandments He is referring to will depend on whom we ask. Since the text makes reference to plural commandments – as in more than one – many will suggest He is referring to THE Ten Commandments, but is it Exodus 20 or Exodus 34? Christians will refer to Exodus 20 as the more commonly referred-to commandments, but Exodus 34 actually refers to the “ten commandments”. Others will suggest that the “commandments” to which Jesus refers will be the two “greatest commandments” to love the Lord God with all we have and to love neighbor as self.

My point in all this is that we tend to pigeon-hole ourselves and our doctrines when we attempt to so narrowly define such terms as “grace” or “law”, but many of us get tripped up when we read Paul suggesting to us that “the works of the law” are very nearly useless. It is important to remember that in Galatians, Paul is addressing the problems that are being created by the “Judiazers” who are insisting to new converts that they must still be circumcised, that even though they are to ultimately become Christians they must still adhere to Jewish law. And lest we forget, Jesus was Jewish and adhered to the Law. Circumcision goes all the way back to the covenant the Lord made with Abraham, and there is nothing written in the Law which negates this. Yet in the context of Galatians, these are perhaps the “the works of the law” to which Paul refers.

So what is a Christian to do? More importantly perhaps, what is a Christian supposed to teach a seeker who is trying to develop a relationship with the Lord? Is there such a thing as a conflict which may exist between what we know as “law” and what we think we know as “grace”? If there is such a conflict between the two, it comes close to suggesting a more Gnostic understanding of the nature of the Divine in which there is an OT God of the Hebrews and a NT God and Father of the Christ. One insists on “law” – physical matter and acts, and the other is more abiding in “grace” – spiritual matters and acts.

Circumcision, though an outward and physical sign of a covenant, is still an inward act because Christian and Jewish men are obviously not going to walk around naked so that everyone can see our faith. And this robe I wear today may identify me as a pastor, but it says nothing of my sense of spirituality and could actually cause a conflict with those who would suggest that a licensed pastor should not be wearing a robe at all, certainly not a stole (which I won’t wear). And we would conduct these arguments while eating catfish (unclean) at a restaurant on the Sabbath!

I am not suggesting that the Law does not matter and I also don’t think Paul is suggesting such a thing to the Galatians, but I will suggest that there is more to his argument than we give proper attention to. After all, the Law prohibits stealing. Can we say that it’s ok to steal if we really want to because we are “not under the law”? Of course not. Jesus even tells His disciples that we prove our love for Him by obedience; without the Law, there is nothing to obey. There is nothing to differentiate between right and wrong except what seems ok to us and even Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates did not agree on right, wrong, and reason though they would split hairs on what constitutes “moral law”, “natural law”, and “civil law” or their basis of existence. I think all would agree, though, that there must be a societal standard of conduct.

The Mosaic Law is a community system of standards, and this law distinguishes a people. But Jesus uses the woman as a portrait of how it all works together, that there is not a distinction between Law and Grace because each is of a Divine Source. The Law creates a community, violation of that Law is a sign of brokenness, and Grace is that means by which we are brought back into that community. The Pharisee with whom Jesus was dining had cast this woman out of the community because of the community’s standard, but without the grace by which we are restored to the community was lacking. And the Lord God is nothing if not “restorative”; hence the Covenant of Christ.

Do not disregard the Law, but do not forget that it is but one side of a two-sided coin. Jesus is indeed Grace personified, but He also fulfills the Law rather than “doing away with it”. It is the complete and total picture of the ONE true God and Father of all creation. It is His community; it is His standard, and it is His alone to restore.