The personal and corporate expressions of exegetical, theological, and practical Antinomianism

The Exegetical, Theological, and Practical Expressions of Antinomianism (both personally and corporately) (Part One)

Introduction

    Christians of all people should be the ones who can get along the most.  Sadly, interpretations and applications of the Scripture itself is what causes divisions. Not only these areas but the way we identify and respond to those who disagree is another problem entirely. Just consider what you think to be essential and nonessential theological positions and how our consciences interact with one another, especially in regard to the law. Personally, I would rather have the scriptures in my own language, regardless of if its resultant disagreements, at least I can read a Bible for myself.  So again, in the spirit of Romans 12:18, "as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men," instead of labeling people with ad homiems let's wrestle through the nuances of Antinomianism. 

    So, before we can begin any discussion of an idea or disagree on its applications, we need to have a definition of the term. It is much easier to fabricate a definition and accuse others of sinning against my own contrived definition either in belief or practice or simply to fire off ad hominem attacks, but I'd rather wrestle with the text. Here is part of the problem, emotionally charged terms like lawlessness, legalism, antinomianism, license, or worldliness are very nuanced and don't apply consistently across the board. However, our mission today is to discuss the concept of antinomianism. On a basic level, you can see it is a compound word combining "anti-" and "nomian."  The first idea should be simple: "anti" means to be "against" something. The second term is a transliteration of the Greek term for "law" or "custom." But is that really helpful? Antinomian means to be against law. In a way it means "lawlessness." Still not all that helpful but a decent starting point. The scriptures themselves identify this term "law" with multiple nuances--the entire Old Testament, part of the Old Testament, or maybe even the Ten Commandments explicitly, to suggest a few.

    I would like to suggest being most helpful we need a nuanced understanding of the terms such as Legalism and Antinomianism. Historically, we have wrestled with understanding "law" in nuanced fashions such as a civil, ceremonial, and moral law. Even this understanding creates push back that the law must be understood as all or nothing (see James 2:10, "offend in one point, he is guilty of all") or defined in a manner in which Christ fulfilled it, "For Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4). But there must be some more nuances or principles behind it because the "law" is still referenced hundreds of times by New Testament writers. So, I would like to suggest this concept of Antinomianism can likewise be understood in a nuanced fashion from a Biblical perspective. I think we have room to argue here since the term does not show up in the scriptures and we need to do a better job than simply accusing other Christians of obeying and/or applying less verses than I do (be it decalogue, Mosaic law, or Old Testament as a whole). I do wish to take Christ's warnings seriously from Matthew 5:19, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach me so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven...." So, I would like to tread carefully before I thrown out about 2/3 of my Bible or say it doesn't matter or apply to me in 2023.

Argument Proper

    With that introduction and basic understanding of law and some of its nuances I would like to suggest based on the title of this article at least three nuances to the concept of Antinomianism. And I think you'll see there is more to grasp than simply saying "against law." These three categories are exegetical, theological, and practical Antinomianism. It would not be fair to call someone an Antinomian without nuancing what I actually mean especially since I know there are good and godly Christian people holding to other positions on this issue than myself. That in itself should cause me to want to, even if we don't always, show charity toward other Christians in this area. And as we shall see the terms: antinomianism and legalism are closely the opposite sides of the same coin.

I must admit to a degree, definitional nuances are almost like splitting hairs but for our purpose it is necessary. Let's define our three aspects and focus on each individually. Worst case I don't want to be accused of definitional hedging, which is always a danger, but here we go. First, exegetical antinomianism is an understanding of law which sees the law like a dimmer switch. Second, theological antinomianism is an understanding of law which sees the law like an on/off switch. Lastly, practical antinomianism is an understanding of law in which a person is living without law. The greater struggle I hope to show is that these categories overlap and there is a point in which a person's relationship to the law also parallels their relationship to Jesus Christ. Please understand I will unpack the three categories giving each a separate and fuller explanation and I will do my best to reference modern day authors wrestling with these issues.

Exegetical Antinomianism

First, what does an exegetical antinomian look like? What theological positions might they oppose? This is the Christian in my diagram below in the far-left blue circle (no political association just for example purposes). To this person their understanding and relationship to the law (be it OT, Decalogue, imperatives, rules) functions as a dimmer switch. A dimmer switch by reminder can be turned on but you can typically slide it up/down or left/right making changing the level of light in the room. For quick application, these Christians do believe the law does apply today but in different ways and in different nuances. Each scriptural text is interpreted and applied personally and corporately with the understanding that the law is somehow and someone still functioning today (hence in our diagram there is an overlap with those who believe the law is either on or off). And yes, this applies to both dispensationalists and covenant theologians but in different forms of emphasis, nuance, and application.

Theological Antinomianism

Second, what does a theological antinomian look like? How do they view their relationship to the law. Back again to our diagram, the theological antinomian is the Christian in the center circle (the one in red). Please note according to the diagram, a theological antinomian tends to view the law as an on/off switch. Simply put the law is still in effect or it is not. Please note also that those of this understanding overlap two different positions. One, they overlap the exegetical antinomian to their left and the practical antinomian to their right. Again, this position as we will discuss in future articles has an interpretive grid providing for convenient applications such as "that was for Israel" or "this applies to the church" way of thinking. Please note also this grid has a 2000-year bridge to cross. Just like the dispensationalist and covenant theologian they still have to wrestle with what can be identified with labels such as: descriptive, prescriptive, or normative. 

Practical Antinomianism

Lastly, what does a practical antinomian look like? How do they view the law? What do they think of its application to them? Refer to our diagram, the practical antinomian believes they are not under the law in any form or fashion. Please note the green circle above overlaps the theological antinomian to their left. So, there are clearly people in this camp who believe and interpret scripture as though it does not apply to them in many or most aspects of life. They may tend to minimize doctrine and emphasize more often than not that particular texts only applied to the original audience. Much of wrestling with this group will involve how we identify the overlapping portion with the red/green circles and conversely how might we tend to label those who do not overlap the red in any way. At what point do we truly and honestly start using phrases such as: worldliness, licentious, without rules, slaves to the flesh, or unbeliever.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have discussed some introductory basics on Christianity and it's understanding of and application of the law. We've discussed the law has multiple facets: OT, decalogue, imperatives, or simply rules. This author has also started a hopefully charitable understanding of differently nuanced positions on the law: Exegetical antinomianism, theological antinomianism, and practical antinomianism. In future articles we shall wrestle honestly as possible with each positions' understandings of and application of the law.

As always thoughts and comments encouraged.

 

Musicals and Morality: Tradition, Tradition, Tradition (Part 2)

Musicals and Morality: Tradition, Tradition, Tradition 
(Fiddler on the Roof)







Some of you know the exact musical where the term "tradition" comes from without batting an eye or straining a memory cell.  For others, it may seem rather strange.  Perhaps to some its some narrow-minded perspective on reading the scripture (you know all that old sound doctrine stuff that moderns are trying to shun).  But to those who live in the village of Anatevka it helps keep life in balance.  Yep, you guessed it, the time honored classic "Fiddler on the roof."  As far as I can tell, it has been a global stage musical since 1964 and became a movie screen addition in 1971.

This musical is jam packed with songs that readily come to the culturally informed mind.  Songs such as: "Tradition" "To Life" or even "If I were a Rich Man."  Its kinda hard to get the picture out of your mind of a rather plump individual dancing in his barn rafters wishing he had more money (belly shaking and all).  The classic has its ups and downs.  I guess I've seen it a dozen or more times over the years.

For those of you who have never seen it, skip this paragraph (WARNING), because I'll ruin the ending for you.  The general plot line goes as follows.  The main character (Tevye) and his family live in a little village of Anatevka. Here's a key fact: the entire village are Jews.  One of these "traditions" is that a matchmaker finds brides for the men in the village.  This idea drives the movie.  The daughters want to get married, the parents have high or low expectation for the future spouse, and the dad approves of the "match" (husband and wife).

The musical itself revolves around Tevye's oldest three daughters finding husbands (one of these men is a Gentile).  The eldest daughter wants to marry a poor child-hood friend (turned seamstress). The next in line wants to marry the village rabbi's son, but ends up marrying a stranger to the village (Jewish of course).  The third daughter marries a Gentile (which causes a great deal of turmoil in their home resulting in shunning his daughter).

So at what point are there concerns with the plot?  Christian morality at stake?  What potential take away's can an Christian audience discern?  I'll answer those questions by identifying certain pertinent facts which arise from the film version itself.  I'll give two examples of this idea.

First, the movie itself pictures animosity of the Gentile nations towards God's chose people, the nation of Israel.  Tevye on several marked occasions, identifies himself (and and his family) as "God's chosen people."  He later makes kind remarks toward a law enforcement official and comments "its a shame your not a Jew."  This particular theme plays out over and over.  Sort of like seeing Psalm Two on the big screen.  Don't forget this musical revolves around a Jewish village.  They are still waiting for the Messiah to come (which is sadly brought out in the end of the movie).

Second, the movie flows around the concept of tradition.  This is one point where Christians can learn from the foibles of the movie.  The movie characters are completely controlled by the concept of tradition.  Tradition, I would define as: this is the way we have always done it.  Caveat: that does not mean the way we've always done is was wrong.  Those who think or do other wise appear strange, radical, or subversive.  The oldest daughter, who wants to marry a poor tailor, goes outside of traditional "match-maker" to make her own match.  Tevye's opening narrative addresses this point on self items such as heading coverings and prayer garments.  As to whether Tevye's conclusion is correct, in the process of breaking tradition, seems to be answered in his third daughters marriage.  The first two daughters marry Jewish men (the first, from within the village; the second, a stranger to the village).  The third daughter expands on this traditional break down further by marrying a Gentile (outside the Jewish people).  This final step ends in the shunning of his own daughter.

There are several points which can tend to make it sad to watch.  First,  as was just mentioned, the shunning of the third eldest daughter, for marrying outside the Jewish people.  Not only did she not want her parents blessing but didn't care much for his views either.  This is a sort of an expansion on her elder sister, who didn't want here dads permission either, simply his "blessing" (after they already determined what they would do).  Second, is the marriage scene finishing the first half of the movie.  Such a wonderful and blessed occasion to be remembered.  But the Gentile police force comes in wrecking not just the wedding but the entire village.  Third, when the second eldest daughter, leaves to be with her beloved who has been taken to a prison camp in Siberia.  She sings such a sad parting song, "leaving the home she loved."  Fourth, when the entire village is evicted by the Gentile authorities.  This is the closing portion of the movie including the main cast members singing "Anatevka."

On a happy or encouraging note, here the parents sing a "sabbath prayer" for or to their children is a continued blessing.  What loving parent would not want to pray for their children's protection from "the strangers ways"  or to be a blessing like Ruth or Esther.  Perhaps even the dancing seen in the bar when they sing "To Life" (minus the drunken condition Teyve walks home in).  More could be mentioned but these are memorable enough.

All in all the musical is entertaining to watch and listen to the music.  Some love it.  Others may not.  Definitely one which my family continues to watch and sing.  And as far as I know, we will continue to watch it and sing its heart warming tunes for many years to come.

Comments as always encouraged.
This musical is definitely worth watching.
Not a perfect article but just some thoughts concerning the musicals basic content.
Enjoy.