When Is "Law" Appropriate?

Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.  Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.  So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily. (Acts 16:3-5 NASB)

So, Paul gets all fired up and goes to Jerusalem to get a "ruling" on Gentiles and salvation from the apostles and elders.  What he comes away with is a letter that stipulates four things for Gentiles to abstain from so that the fellowship with Jewish believers won't be interrupted or strained.  Circumcision didn't make the list.  In fact that was the crux of the issue with a certain group.  The claimed that Gentiles needed to become circumcised in order to be saved.

Paul has this letter in hand to share with the churches he and Barnabas started on their first journey, and he does.  Yet, in the first "whistle stop", he finds this man, Timothy, who has a Jewish mother and a Greek father.  He wants to take Timothy with him on his current journey, but before he does, he circumcises him.  The reasoning is that "they all knew that his father was a Greek."  But Paul has a letter in hand that says, "so what" to circumcision.

My guess (and it can ever only be that) is that Timothy had been hanging out with the Jewish crowd in Derbe and Lystra.  In that case, he might be well thought of and accepted, but only as a God-fearing Gentile rather than as a Jew.  In a sense, he had an option.  He could choose to be either one, a Jew or a Gentile.  Paul's letter pertains to Gentiles, but Jews were expected to remain Jews.  So Paul, holding a letter stating four non-circumcision things, a letter representing a victory for him among Jews, circumcises Timothy so he would be accepted as his companion by the other church members.

I suppose that Timothy's being a Jew would make it easier for him to be accepted in the Synagogues as they travel.  Yet, I think Luke is assumed to be a Gentile, and he travels with them from Troas.  I don't think Paul's decision or Timothy's acquiescence had to do with them being "traveling companions" but rather with how Timothy was perceived by the church.  If this is the case, I have a hard lesson to learn here.

I think that there are times when acquiescing to perceptions in the church, even when I disagree, is the best path.  Obviously there are several qualifiers here, one of the top ones being differences over clear statements in Scripture.  But where the Scripture is silent, where my Master has decided to not give a clear indication of His "line in the sand" on an issue, I have room to step back from a "fight".  I don't like that.  But, this is one of those things that is not about what I like.

There are a lot of "issues" and theological positions that are not "hard and fast".  Salvation by faith in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is not one of those, that is "hard and fast".  But there are others, like how often should a church take communion, pass a plate or use offering boxes in the back, modern Christian music or hymns, pulpit or music stand, coat-and-tie or casual wear (for pastors and/or attendees), King James or modern translation, email or vellum for modern "epistles".  All of those (except the last one) are current issues in churches.  I have discussed things like the place of the Hebrew Scriptures among modern Christian believers.  I have argued for things like women in ministry as opposed to relegated obscurity, acceptance of divorced persons in positions of responsibility and leadership, and my specific view of end times.  I didn't win all or even most of them.  In fact, I suspect these sorts of "discussions" are rarely "won".

The thing I have to swallow is that these points are not points of "salvation" or "lost".  In the days of Paul and Peter, there was no "New Testament", so they "limped along" with 39 books of Scripture.  I suppose that it's possible to "limp along" today with 27 (I don't know why you would, but I suppose you could).  The King James is a fine translation, and people have been saved using that translation longer than anyone today has been alive.  I don't prefer it, but I don't think it's a poor translation, just hard to read due to language changes since it was translated.  I prefer modern Christian music, casual dress, offering boxes, no pulpit of any sort, and chairs over pews.  I believe preachers should preach to what they have studied and not wander into where they have not.  But really, so what?  I have to accept the answer to the question, "who am I" doesn't really give much weight to my "positions" or "beliefs".

The reality is that we, as a body of believers, must be unified more than any one of us must be right.  That's hard, but true.  I want to be right, dang it!  Ironically, a lot of the time, I'm not.  I may want to be really really bad, but that does not change the accuracy of the facts I use.  I simply do not know enough to be right all the time.  I am still learning, and often, learning to accept when I'm wrong.  The reality is that I need help to understand what my Master has inspired to be written.  That is one of the most important reasons I'm in a small group.  I need the perspective of others so my own will be better informed.  The truth I must live out is that my Master designed His Scriptures in such a way that any one person only gets a part; that it's only together we can better understand Scripture, and Him.  That, by the way, is the basis of "Knot-Hole Theology".  It's basically a theology of the church, or "Ecclesiology".  And obviously, I'm still trying to learn to live it out.