Are we dressing up for Christ, or are we living like Christ as the example for Christ?

Example story:



As a Christian, do you dress up for Christ, or do you live as the example for Christ? If a law was made that made it against the law to be a Christian. Would the authorities have reason to even look into your life?

And if you stood before Christ on judgement day, would you have an answer for: What have you done to bring the harvest of fruit for my kingdom?

It's a good story, and often all too close to the truth. Thanks for the reminder!

I think though, that at the end, God will not be asking "what have you done to bring the harvest of fruit for my kingdom?", but, rather, "How well did you obey me?" We are asked to do different things by Him, all in accord with His Plan and Purpose. Evangelizing is, as you have shown in the story, done best with the life, as words are cheap. And our lives should always show Christ in us if we claim to be His followers.

But He also asks different things of us. When we obey, we are building with His materials of gold, silver, and costly stones (see 1 Cor. 3). When we go off on our own, we are building with wood, hay, and straw, all of which will be destroyed by fire.

One direction which my husband and I have seen which is often ignored (and in favor of 'evangelizing' one way or another) is that which Paul gives us of using our talents and gifts to build up the body. Instead we seem to see so much infighting among professing Christians that I feel it brings the name of Christ into shame and disgrace. Jesus said the world would know us by our love. To love is the great commandment, both to love God and to love our fellow man. That's not an emotion -- although plenty of emotions come along for the ride. To love is to commit to care for over and above oneself, or as least as well as oneself.

Raising my children, there were times I totally wanted time alone -- for say a week! Not possible. I had made a commitment to raise them and care for them and they needed me. When they were babies, I was not fond of getting up in the middle of the night for a feeding or to change a diaper, but I did it. I had commited to love. Very often the feelings are what we associate with love -- the higher than a kite feeling when you look down at that (now) clean and sleepy little one with the half-smile just before he nods off. But that wasn't what you were feeling when the kid vomited and pooped all within thirty seconds of each other. But both times you loved that child.

And we are commanded to love one another. So perhaps the question at the end will be "how well did you love? How well did you care for one another?" Alongside that we are commanded by Paul to have an answer for the hope we have. This is where your post comes in so truly. People will not ask questions if they see no difference in our lives. So they must see Christ in us. The other side of that is that we need to know both the Bible and our Lord well enough to be able to give a true answer for the faith and hope that we have -- to show it is not blind and not desperate, but a fully intelligent response and commitment to what we know is true and real.

God bless.

I have tattoos and earrings and listen to punk. I don't even go to church.

No one would ever suspect me as a Christian, my friends deny the fact I think because of my past atheism and outspokenness towards religion.

It seems easy for those brought up in Christendom to say these things:


If, hypothetically, the law outlawed Christianity, I'd line up to die. And I suspect if I died tomorrow, nobody would claim I helped them to the lord. Probably a few would be in hell because of me, unfortunately.

It's a long road ahead before I become public about my religion. Please don't make it any harder by pointing fingers.

My finger is not the one you need to worry about. If you are not willing to change, to what reason would I try?

I am concerned. But you can't force change upon someone who chooses to reject it. So why do you resist change? You did Choose Christ, did you not?

I have had earrings, no tattoos. No earrings now because of my line of work lots of electricity and things to rip my ears off. Tattoos are on my wife some of my (6) kids from 2 marriages. I might get one if I found one that screamed ME! My occupation (Power Generation), also keeps me away from church for weeks at a time due to the rolling 4 day schedule. I am in my second marriage and can't claim to have no cause in the loss of the first. I consume more alcohol than the recommended daily allowance of any study toward the benefits, but my kidneys are not in any jeopardy.
There is not one among my family, friends (mostly at work and 90% are not in their first marriage, our industry is tough on relationships), many other co-employees, even most acquaintances that does not know of my Christianity and expect that I will answer (sometimes need to research first) any religious question they have.
I have found that appearance and life situation have little to do with a Christian's walk. Our life is the path God placed us on to enable us to be His vessel IN our circumstance. Billy Graham can not walk into a punk bar and expect acceptance.

I don't judge people for having tattoos, I would welcome them into my church if they so choose to come. My main concern for those who have them is how God "might" look at that. That's all. We will have a hard enough time with sin on judgement day. But because there are sins forgiven that we will bare regardless, it does not mean a tattoo would condemn someone. Only God can determine that. The bible is not clear about tattoos completely, but you do not see the apostles getting them. But it does say that some cult worshipers did use them to mark themselves for baal.

Some punk rockers sing for Christ. Some bikers ride for Christ. Some armies fight / fought for Christ. The list is long. For thousands of years people have pointed at other peoples whatevers and said "God does not like that". But God can't be sited.

What we do in our family to keep from being legalistic about appearance and "fruit" issues is we apply the "eating meat" test. In 1 Cor:8 eating meat offered to idols was not prohibited unless it would be a stumbling block to a weaker brother.

To relate that to earings and tatoos: In our culture and society we equate earings and tatoos with rebellion, particularly youth rebellion. You, yourself personally might wear earings or get a tatoo for purely innocuous reasons. However, someone who is adorned with rebellious trappings and who wishes to be a witness for Christ might find seekers and weaker brothers getting a mixed message.

In our family all the women wear dresses, all the time. No pants or shorts. It's not because we can point to a verse in the Bible that says, "Woman shall not wear pants." It's because of modesty issues, particularly in that we want our family to be a testimony for Christ everywhere we go. And it's hard to focus a guy's thoughts on Christ when he's looking at a gal's (blunt language here) crotch or tush.

Again. It's not meant to be legalistic, it's just our interpretation of the "eating meat offered to idols" verses.

Dave

God can't be sited as far as how He will judge someone is very true. But He can be sited if His words says it.

People who have tattoos before they were saved, are forgiven for them. But they must bare their sin upon their flesh unless they are willing to have them removed. Having tattoos after you are saved is forgivable as well. But again, the same applies.

But here is an interesting fact I uncovered while researching osas and non-osas (not to be a part of this debate). I had to research sin, and how it would be judged to find more truth on the issue. What I found explains a whole lot I did not know, and I find a lot of Christians I have spoke to did not know either. But it's hard to explain, because it hard to put into words. But it changes the whole way I now look at judgement. But here it is in a nut shell.

We will be judged on our knowledge of sin, not that what we do is sin. What this means is: that at the time you commit what can be considered sin by God's standard for sin, but you had no knowledge that it was sin. You cannot be condemned for it. For how can you be condemned for what you knew not of? Need a verse?

jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Now the flip side of the coin would be: Therefore to him that did not knoweth to do good, and does bad, to him it is not a sin.

Knoweth = knowledge. So sin is the knowledge of the good side of what you should do. But rejecting it to do evil instead.

Example: Adam and Eve were both shown the tree of knowledge of both good and evil. Now if God had said nothing about eating of it. They would have no knowledge of it being a sin. So therefore it would not have been a sin when they ate from it.

But what did God tell them about the tree? He told them that if they ate from it, they shall surely die. What this means is that God gave them the knowledge to do good, but they rejected it to do evil. So sin is based on our knowledge that it is sin.

So the next time any of us feels the need to judge someone about their actions that might be sin. Consider whether that they knew it was sin when they did what was done. If they knew not, then they are condemned not. And therefore they will not have that sin stand against them on judgement day.

But the flip side of them not having the knowledge of that sin is that we (the bretheren) are supposed to correct them so that they do not do it again. And once they learn about it being sin, they they become responsible for their actions concerning this sin from that point forward.

For if we were made aware of all sins upon being saved, how many of us would turn away because the burden of this change all at once was to big to do? So when we see someone sin, instead of condemning them for their actions. We should look and wonder if they even know it is a sin. Why do you think the new in Christ are always asking: Is this a sin, or is that a sin? Until they have knowledge of it, it is not a sin.

So about tattooing: If God has not revealed to a person about it being a sin (if it is), then it is not a sin until they understand it as being one. Even if they reject it when someone tells them. For if they are not ready to recieve such knowledge about a certain thing, God will not reveal it to them regardless of how much information we give them. But, if a person does understand (gets knowledge), but refuses it, and acts dumb because he or she prefers to. Then God will know. And that is all that counts. No one can hide from God's rightous judgement. But we can fool man, but God is never fooled.

Question: If God did not tell Adam and Eve about the tree, and how bad it was to eat from it. Would they have been considered sinning when they did not know as they ate of it?

I would have thought Christ was a bit of a rebel, wouldn't you?

Hi Falcone,

If you'll describe in detail the picture that you have of Jesus as a rebel -- dress, comportment, attitude -- I'll tell you if the Bible supports that picture.

Dave

Hi Dave

Without going off and looking up anything specific...

I imagine that the authorities took a rather dim view of Christ. He must have drawn attention to himself while delivering sermons and so on. Were his teachings rather controversial at the time? I'm under the impression they were. I'm guessing that while not being an activist, he certainly wasn't afraid to speak up for himself and probably got himself into a few scrapes. Knocking over the money tables I'm sure would have been consided a rebelious act at the time. In the end he was of course crucified, so he must have upset a number of people.

I have no idea if Jesus or his followers dressed in any particular way to identify themselves. I've never heard such a thing said, so I guess not.

Hi Falcone,

I realize there is a segment of society that wishes to portray Christ as a rebel, sort of a 2,000-years-ago Middle-Eastern Che Gueverra.

In my opinion, however, that begs the question: Just what or whom would Jesus be rebelling against? Himself?

That's because Jesus is Lord of all. The authority. All rulers in all nations are under His authority, ordained for their position by God for His purpose. Rom 13:1 -- "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

I believe that those who see the Lord as a rebel have a difficult time recognizing the diety of Jesus. They see him only as a man. He is a man, but also God.

Christ never preached for the overthrow of the Roman government, or for the Jews to cast off their Jewishness. He tells us he came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil the law. Mat 5:17 -- "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Those authorities who "took a dim view of Christ," as you say, were actually the rebels. They were the Pharisees who knew the word of God, but failed, probably because of pride, to recognize that Jesus was indeed the Messiah as prophesied so many centuries before.

The Bible has almost no words describing Christ's appearance. Probably for good reason, so as not to set people up for idol worship. All we can do is surmise that Jesus walked the earth looking very much like those he traveled with.

So, no. There isn't any evidence that Christ was a rebel. Quite the contrary, He tells us, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." -- John 14:6. Those who choose not to come to the Father through Jesus are the rebels. Their numbers are legion. God knows who they are, and He has a plan for them.

Dave

The reason that Christ came was because the old covenant had become corrupt because the priests were more interested in making a profit off of something everyone was supposed to be able to do.

When Christ entered the church where there was a den of thieves selling sin atonement for profit. What was going on was that the poor people were not able to buy the sin atonement animals, and therefore were not able to make sin atonement.

That is why Christ got mad and tore the place up and called them thieves. They were stealing the chance for everyone to make a sin atonement. So salvation (a way to heaven) through the old covenant was ruined because of greed. Christ pointing out what they had done is what made the priest mad enough to kill Him. Christ was not only pointing this out, but was also the one that was claiming to be able to fix it.

The priest wanted nothing to do with their profit being fixed back to what it was. They had the people, and the government eating out of their hands because they were afraid. The government was afraid of the priests gathering the people for war, and the people out numbered the government army.

The people of God were afraid of the priests because they feared God's wrath. And the priests were "using that fear" to control them and make profit while denying the poor their sin atonement.

So Christ had to come down from heaven to make a new covenant, so that the old one would no longer apply and no one would be denied sin atonement because of how poor they were.

That is why salvation is called a "free gift". Bypassing the priests to where man can obtain it through Christ makes the way incorruptible by man. This is because Christ becomes our priest. And He does not care about money because in heaven money means nothing.

So you see, Christ was like a person who was taking a corrupt system, exposing the corruption and the people involved. And in doing so was taking away the power of the priests over the people and government. Along with taking away their way of making a profit. So the priest were losing:

1) There power over the people and government.
2) Their status.
3) The money they started making when they devised a corrupt way to do it.

In other words, they were like kings being brought down to peasant status. they were not going to go willingly, and just to show how corrupt they were. they would kill anyone who attempted to. And that is why they killed Christ.

So in other words, as long as the priests did the sin atonement thing where no one was denied sin atonement. Everything was okay and God was happy. But as soon as they became corrupt, they became like a mafia. Their greed corrupted them so a new covenant had to be made. So like the mafia would do if someone tried to bring them down, is what the priest did to Christ as He did bring them down. And that is to kill anyone who stood in their way.

Also, His sermons showed the priests they were on the way out. His healings showed He had the power to do it as well. But because they were full of the devil, their hate grew. And because new innocent blood had to be shed to make a new covenant, their killing of Christ actually made the new covenant. So in their own hate, they made their own demise.