Rules intended to serve grace

Let me say this as boldly – if cryptically – as I can: As a “book of instruction,” the Bible is less a collection of legal briefs and more a collection of grace notes.

I embrace this notion today as I wrestle with the ever-present dichotomy of legalism and grace.

The struggle of legalism and grace is always a thorn in the side of Christians. But it is particularly troublesome when it threatens to significantly divide well-meaning church folks from each other.

To illustrate what I mean, let me update you on what happened two weeks ago within the United Methodist denomination.

Our structure has many governing bodies. One of the most powerful is the Judicial Council.

It functions as our denomination’s supreme court. Its nine members gather to analyze points of church law brought to them and render a decision.

Two weeks ago, they heard a case in which a United Methodist bishop on the East Coast put one of her pastors on involuntary leave of absence. He had refused to accept a certain person into the membership of the church where the pastor was “in charge.”

The bishop’s decision was challenged at the Judicial Council level: Did she have the authority to relieve the pastor of his position?

I don’t know the complete story, but here is what was reported in the Judicial Council minutes: The man who sought membership was quite an active participant in the church for some time. He asked to have his membership transferred from another denomination.

The senior pastor knew this man was gay and lived in an ongoing relationship with another man. And that’s where the process bogged down.

The pastor met with the man several times over a two-month period. He concluded he could not welcome the man into membership because he would not become a celibate homosexual. The bishop ruled that the pastor cannot deny membership to a person based on the fact he was a practicing homosexual. The Judicial Council ruled the bishop was in error, and the pastor will be reinstated and available to lead another church.

Now, there are many legal technicalities and interpretations that underlie all of the decisions in this case. I won’t go into them here. I don’t even pretend to understand them all.

What I do understand, however, is that this is just the latest arena in an ongoing struggle for the soul of the United Methodist Church.

Certainly, homosexuality played a major role in this particular case. I strongly suspect the pastor believes that homosexuality is strictly a choice made by a person, so it is seen as a high-level “sin of commission.”

If he believed that homosexuality is a genetic disposition, not a lifestyle choice, I don’t know why he would refuse to admit into church membership a person who is in a committed relationship with someone he loves. This is done with heterosexual couples frequently, and no fuss is made (publicly at least).

At the deepest level, however, I believe this case touches on a greater struggle of the soul that only uses homosexuality as its latest foil. It is an ancient struggle recorded often and powerfully in the Bible itself. Legalism and grace are at it again.

As usual, legalism wants to subdue grace. Also as usual, grace eventually will emerge the victor in this battle.

Grace is a tough lady. Some people mistake her unconditional acceptance of all persons as abject weakness.

But she is far stronger than any legalistic strategy.

Stories in the Old and New Testaments often draw pretty clear lines between legalism and grace. The story of Hosea and Gomer (Hosea 1-3) is a classic reminder of God’s redeeming grace overcoming legalistic expectations.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each show how Jesus confronted the religious legalism of his day with God’s grace. When we succumb to a legalistic interpretation of how we are to be in a faithful relationship to God and each other, we fall into a common power trap.

Paul reminds us in Romans 7 that “we do the thing we should not do.” It is a daily struggle for all of us who seek to follow Jesus.

But we can reduce the struggle when we try to keep legalism and grace in their proper balance. Every day, we depend on rules too much and grace too little.

Rules have their place, and that’s in the service of grace.

Legalism tries to protect the illusion of power. Grace moves us to embrace the power of love.

When we have more faith in legal briefs than in grace notes to back up “what we believe,” we negate the very experience of grace. Conditions attached to the language and reality of grace effectively banish grace from our hearts.

So if we say God is a “God of grace,” yet we’ve banished grace from our hearts, what have we done with God?