[OBW]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I don't disagree with this. This, of course, acknowledges (in different words) that while "WWJD" has a place - perhaps even being a necessary mindset - the ACTUAL "righteousness" is not derived from asking the question or your own answer to it. Indeed, it is a change of our very person (call it "fundamental change", call it "organic growth" - whatever) that brings in any modicum of TRUE righteousness that might come out of us.

I don't want anyone to think that I am in disagreement with what Peter has written here.

But at the same time, I think that the focus on some intrinsic change being the requirement for "true" acts of righteousness is a kind of error. Almost like a "bait and switch" sales pitch.

There is a call to be righteous. While we do have something "going on inside" that is beneficial to our efforts in that way, the point is more nearly that we be righteous than that we be "intrinsic."

I think that a look at what Paul wrote to the Galatians about being crucified is a decent example. He was out to direct them back to the right kind of living. But he didn't just say "do it," although he could have. Instead, he pointed to a spiritual fact for them to hang their metaphorical hats on. "I am crucified with Christ . . . and the life I now live, I live by . . . ." Paul did not tell the Galatians to get more crucified. Or to work on their source. He pointed to a fact. Then he said that because of that fact they should do what Paul was directing them toward.

I think that we have erroneously concluded that true righteousness can only happen through some "organic" or "intrinsic" thing. And when you read things like the "abiding" stuff, you might conclude that it is simply true.

But I think that there is less "activity" associated with "abiding" than we have been led to believe. I think that maybe it is more like "I have been" than "I need to be." The latter is how we were taught to treat all of these "spiritual" things by Lee and the LRC.

I'm convinced that God wants righteousness. And there are quite a lot of unbelievers that are, overall, just as righteous as the best of us believers.

But there is one more thing. God also wants followers, worshipers, believers. And being one of those is like accepting a commission to be a police officer. Anyone can actually do the job. And if they actually did it well, it could be a good thing. But only those who have been hired for the task are acknowledged by the justice system as actual police officers.

Not a very good example. But where I'm going with it, and the previous thoughts, is that the bulk of the scripture seems to argue for believers and followers who, as part of following, obey. Obedience will be righteousness. Abiding is necessary. But what is abiding? Is it really some separate activity to do before obeying? Before producing fruit? Or is it about remaining in your position as an obedient follower? Before Jesus told us to abide, he said that those who obeyed and loved would have abiding.

In closing, have we taken the whole "organic" idea too far? Is it really about believing? Is it more about position than disposition? Does believing and doing trump "spirituality"?

Have we created a religion that does not resemble what was in the first century? (And while it may be that "inner life" groups are worse at it, this seems to point at us all.)

I'm not saying. I'm just asking. I'm reading and beginning to wonder if we have colored everything with a presumption of "organic-ness" that really isn't there. Not saying that there is no such thing, but that it is not the kind of primary thing that we have learned and presume is there.

I see enough that it makes me wonder if we are all standing in a field mooing. If we have been reading "red" and saying "yellow."