Brief note, for those who may not know the Christ-emphasis of this site or the contents of the other columns in the series: none of this should be construed as enacting nothing but Law against Christians. The same Christ Who told us we break God’s real Law far more easily than we might think, also offers Himself as the perfect fulfillment of that Law. Scripture is clear: because of the Law, we know our sin, and because Christ came, preached His kingdom, died and resurrected, we can know our Savior from sin.

One of the best reasons I’ve heard is that we can still discern the intents behind some of the more time-specific laws, such as putting parapets around the roofs of your house — care for houseguests, who might otherwise fall off while staying up there. (Of course, here the death penalty is still hotly contested).

As for what is the difference between moral law (such as the Ten Commandments) and ceremonial law, one of the keys seems to be whether something is repeated in the New Testament. For example, the famous ban on wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics could be seen as being fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding.

Better still, Jesus specifically addresses the prohibitions on certain foods later in Mark 7: 18-19: “And he said to them, ‘Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.)” This is reinforced by Peter’s vision in Acts 11. Its main goal was to show him that Gentiles would now become part of the Church, but a secondary purpose is that all foods are clean.

One of the most direct transferences of Old-Testament laws is from the original commandments against homosexual practice in Leviticus. That is directly carried over into Romans 1, making it clear God’s moral law still prohibits it today (though there is no mention of human-imposed penalties for the practice, as mandated to original Israel).

This is why I think Christians ought to avoid the whole Law-explanation with nonbelievers (often we struggle to get it ourselves!) and focus on what Paul says in Romans. It’s a clear indication that rejection of God leads to that sin and many others.

Thanks for your encouragements, Kathryn! If I write about this topic again soon, many of your suggested qualifiers will be addressed: that we must be careful how we define feminism when and if we critique its tenets and effects.

Unfortunately, this is why some “patriarchy” advocates have gotten so far, by letting “feminism” become the villain — with the silent assumption that therefore, most anything that opposes The Villain is acceptable.

I have known of families in which a father is nearly autocratic, and in which children (especially daughters) are not encouraged to go out on their own to fulfill their own callings for the Kingdom. “Patriarchy” advocates such as Vision Forum often encourage this. And while I am sure many leaders would not condone spiritual or physical abuse, I also ask: do they say as much against it as they do in support of “patriocentrism”? No — because perhaps to them, abuse is not nearly as significant a problem as “feminism.”

Friends and acquaintances of mine have said that they haven’t seen the less-Biblical teachings of Vision Forum, et. al. Therefore to them, they can see the good stuff on the surface and “pick out the bones” while dining on an otherwise decent fish dinner.

I’m still divided on that view; after all, do we not risk endorsing the foundationally bad teachings along with anything that is good? At the very least, if we read or recommend a patriarchalist leader’s book, teaching MP3, etc., we ought to issue heavy disclaimers. But I think it’s much better to get the solid and more Gospel-based teaching on male/female and husband/wife roles elsewhere, such as Grudem’s or Piper’s or others’ teaching.

And what is the world’s perspective of Jesus? “Oh, he’s just so much nicer than that mean, spiteful Old Testament God.”

Maybe some Christians naturally adopt this meme into their minds. Maybe some wouldn’t agree with that, but still subconsciously think that Jesus’ purpose was to render the Law no longer necessary to bring about conviction of sin. As I think about it, I become aware that this myth has sporadically crept into my thinking too.

Paul says later in Galatians 3 (toward the last of the chapter) that the Law was a “guardian,” or schoolmaster or tutor, to bring Christians to Christ. (He is addressing members of a Christian church in that book, not all people.) Jesus did not null the Law’s effects for everyone. He came to fulfill them (Matthew 5). If He actually did abolish the effects of the Law and the Prophets, then He was lying or obscuring the truth.

Questions remain, of course, among them the issue of how Jesus’ fulfilling the Law still negates the need for ceremonial rites such as the sacrifices, remedies for uncleanness and things like that. In the next installments I might include some of that material, as best I can, anyway.

The main point is that while Christians are set free from the Law, it is for a higher and not lesser standard, only made possible through Christ. And non-Christians are still under the Law today — it’s the only way they can know they need a Savior as much as anyone.

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Romans 3: 19-20 (present-tense emphases added)

Also helpful in forming the basis of this column was talking to the president of Northwest Haiti Christian Mission, Janeil Owen. They have a headquarters in Saint-Louis-du-Nord, on the outskirts of the earthquake’s affected areas. For years they have been working in Haiti with a Christian basis, long before it was a more-popular charity hotspot.

Owen added that he hopes people will see the problems in Haiti won’t be solved easily. Moreover, even passion and compassion are not enough to make wise decisions about helping Haiti, he said.

“I’ve seen so many rookie mistakes,” Owen explained. “I tell people: passion and compassion are great. But passion and compassion do not make great leadership. It doesn’t even make great disaster relief. People will do a lot of things out of passion and compassion that turn out to be very useless and actually work against you.”

Many want to do something for the people of Haiti — such as send food or donate money to a relief effort — but it’s vital to ensure the right supplies are getting to the right people, Owen said. He described knowing of planes arriving at airports, full of medical supplies, being unable to do much more than drop the crates off at customs, where they sit undelivered because of a lack of infrastructure.

“Passion-compassion makes great blogs — it can make some great Facebook things — but passion-compassion doesn’t make great leadership,” he said.