Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Defending the Faith, A Risky Business

Life is full of risks. We take risks from the moment we step out of our bed. We take a risk when we decide on a marriage partner. We take a risk when we grow children. We take risks when we get in our car and hit the roads. Without risks we would never make progress. An old Chinese saying states, "He who stands all day on one leg never goes anywhere." Buffalo Bill said, "I had many enemies among the Sioux; I would be running considerable risk in meeting them." But meet them he must. The same was true with Paul who preached a pure gospel of grace. He would not allow for any legal rule to be added to the gospel. As such, the gospel became available to both Jew and Gentile alike. The old faithful Jews did not readily accept that new gospel. They claimed that God's people must keep the ceremonial law. Except for a two-week period when he became acquainted with the apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem, Paul did not go to that city for 14 years aftter his conversion. It took special instructions from the Lord by revelation (Gal. 2:2) for him to go as a representative to the Jerusalem Council. But when he went Paul took a risk by choosing Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile who was now a Christian, to accompany him But notice Paul's actions. He was so very-well balanced. A Christian who is willing to take risks does not mean that he is care-free. He should be directed by the Lord and act in a well-balanced way. Paul was fair with the apostles by laying out the gospel as he understood it and preached it (Gal. 2:2); he was also wise in that he asked for a private meeting with the apostles (Gal. 2:2). A public meeting with such a sensitive issue would have been a needless offense. Brothers and sisters, we need to be willing to take risks under God's leadership, but in doing so to be fair and wise in all we do.

Questions to Ponder:
1. How do you feel when your beliefs are contrary to popular opinion? What would you have done in Paul's place?
2. Would it matter to you if Paul's argument had failed? Why or why not?

No comments: