“The limitations that are part of us being ‘not-God’ were intended to keep us close and in relationship with God. Our very limitations imply the need for relationship. To be a creature is to refuse to make ourselves but instead to joyfully accept our limitations. It is to know that our self-making would be our un-making.”
Julie Canlis, A Theology of the Ordinary, pg. 15
I have been reluctant to address this issue because it is so distasteful, but given that it has now become the ‘coin of the realm’, so to speak (meaning that it is not just available, but part of the normative content of our culture), I think it has become imperative to speak in order that we might share a common definition, reject all that tears down rather than builds up, and pursue the ideal that God established.
Here’s a bit of the history that led me to this commentary. Of all things, my 72-year-old mother sent me an article by Dr. Michael Brown addressing a hit song/video by Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion. Now I’m aware that Cardi B exists, but have ignored her as eminently distasteful. I’ve never heard of the other lady.
So I googled up the lyrics to see what all the fuss was about. I do not recommend this, and would caution anyone reading that these lyrics will provoke an emotional reaction similar to what Phinehas must have felt before he drove the spear through the couple cavorting in front of the Tabernacle (Numbers 25:1-9).
Incensed, depressed, and seeking to galvanize the faithful, I posted on my FB page:
“Let us be honest, forthright, and clear. There ought to be no fuzziness here. The hit song WAP by Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion is pornography.
The lyrics are pornographic; the video is pornographic. That this is not just tolerated in our society but trumpeted and celebrated, is simultaneously a terrible indictment of our culture’s present disease, and will be an inestimably destructive force on the mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being of our culture: men and women.”
And here’s where the real turn happens…
A dear friend of mine, a former roommate from Bible School, commented, “…It was definitely erotic with a lot of imagery. Canât say it reaches the level of pornography….”
Yesterday I was depressed; now I am roused to battle.
So let’s talk pornography… what is it, how ought we to define it, and what is its opposite?
This song (WAP) is pornography by very definition. The first use of the word in English that we know of is traced to 1842, but it comes to us from the Ancient Greek, ÏÎżÏÎœÎżÎłÏÎŹÏÎżÏ (pornographos), where it referred to writings about prostitution. It’s a compound word comprised of ÏÏÏΜη (pornÄ), “prostitute” and ÎłÏÎŹÏÏ (graphĆ), “I write.”
This song begins, “There’s some whores in this house,” repeated four times. This is literally writing about prostitutes.
If we turn to the Scriptures we find that ÏÎżÏÎœÎ”ÎŻÎ± (porneia) referred first to prostitution: sex for sale, but quickly came to refer to any illicit sexuality: that is, sex used for purposes or in a manner twisted from God’s intent, marital intimacy and procreation. So, sex used as an exchange, used to procure desired ends, used to covenant with anyone other than a spouse, or in the service of a deity, was all abhorrent: pornographic. The song describes exclusively pornographic exercise of sexuality for anti-biblical, ungodly purposes, and in lurid, sensational, exchange-oriented, control-focused manner. (pornography: lurid or sensational material, often used in combination. The American HeritageÂź Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.)
The next evolution of the word, was in the Roman period where it came to describe “licentious painting or literature; especially, the painting anciently employed to decorate the walls of room devoted to bacchanalian orgies.” (Collaborative International Dictionary of English). Think, the walls of Pompeii, which I cannot even use here in exemplary manner. Here we find the genesis of pornography being associated with images.
Each of the three women highlighted in this video (Cardi B, Megan Thee Stallion, and Kylie Jenner) are dressed like prostitutes, and engaged in lurid, sensational, enticing, and obscene (âabhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically, designed to incite to lust or depravity) behavior. The fact that the visual aspect of this song/video doesn’t rise to the extremes of what we now commonly call pornography reveals the depths to which our society has descended, not an inaccuracy of definition. And that is precisely part of what moves me so profoundly to something bordering on despair. As a father, I am filled with slow burning, deep running rage at the devastating harm this pornographic putrescence wreaks upon our children.
We ought now to speak of the âpornographicâ nature of non-sexual things. Violence is the other porn of our culture. Hereâs the thing: porn is the lurid display of natural but unrestrained passions. Weâre all familiar with the term âblood-lust,â but have you considered that in the devolution of mores, culture, of humanity, the perversion of sex comes first and is followed by an even deeper twisting where violence becomes entertainment. Christians, myself included, we have been taken unawares: caught by a more profound perversion while protesting the one that was first waved in our faces.
Revenge-story? Not for Christians. âVengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.â John Wick-fan? Thatâs pornography. Hereâs a thought: in ancient Israel, when coming back from war the men had to remain outside the village in order that they not bring the impurity of violence and bloodshed into the home environment. What do we do? We pay for it to be streamed into our living room. Christians ought to abhor the pornographic display of any passion used in a restraint-exceeding manner.
That sounds so tame, so antiseptic, so non-threatening, but our reaction ought to be like that of St. James, âAnd the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hellâ (James 3:1-12).
And if the tongue, how much more so the hand raised in violent intent or the genitals lifted in ungodly pursuit of wicked design? If the tongue is a forest fire, the raging hand is a conflagration, and the rebellious genitalia an inferno.
Theology is first the activity of thinking and talking about God,[1] and second the applicable product of that activity. We might say, then, that theology is musing about God that enables us to ascertain how He wants us to live in the time and place where we dwell. But this is somewhat puzzling because there is a vast disparity among communities of thoughtful believers in terms of how they walk out their understanding of Godâs character.
Perhaps it would be helpful to note that there are multiple faithful communities of Christian understanding and practice who prioritize adherence to biblical instruction, while emphasizing differing aspects of scripture. All of these communities might be described as âfaithful,â even though all are also to some degree âfaithless,â again in a variety of ways. Recognizing that this reality has persisted across history, I propose that the Bible may serve faith and mission best when it generates a dialogue among faithful readers from varying perspectives.
What if interpretation were understood to function in light of relational fact: all who call upon Jesus as Savior/Messiah share a single identity and primary purpose, but reflect a different utility within the over-arching Body of Christ?[2] Thus conceived, interpretation would provoke a lively interchange among interpreters who speak from the particularities of their unique gifts and experiences, and we might begin to celebrate the contribution of each distinct community. None of whom might be said to faithfully reflect the infinite image of God on their own, but all of whom may highlight a particular facet of His image, which the world is certain to be in desperate need of observing and experiencing.
Old Testament scholar, Daniel Hawk, writes:
âAs in the musical work, so in interpretation. Strongly held convictions may be fervently expressed, not as a means of bending other voices to a single, agreed-upon melody, but rather as an expression of distinct voices in a complex conversation that becomes greater than the sum of its partsâŠ.
Christian interpretation, in other words, is both determined and improvisational, not unlike jazz. Jazz integrates diverse melodies into a holistic musical experience that values the voice of each musician as a necessary component of the unified musical enterprise. Jazz requires that musicians listen carefully to the other musicians in the ensemble and follow the flow of the musical conversation. When this is done well, the result is a unified musical work, which nevertheless preserves the distinct voices in the ensembleâŠ.â[3]
Undoubtedly, this way of walking might be (and has been) abused and taken too far. However, it seems to me that this practice, if held in conjunction with the foundational conviction that the Word of God expressed in all of Scripture functions as the primary expression of Godâs ultimate authority, continuing to instruct the redeemed of every generation, will yield abundant fruit in the lives of Godâs people. After all, the best jazz musicians are those who know the laws of music so intimately they are enabled to bend them in a harmonious and melodic manner, consistent with the spirit of music, and in unified relationship with the efforts of the gathered community of musicians.
While the Bible points to Godâs ideals, it also describes Christ-like accommodations to sinful brokenness.[4] And, indeed, as Elmer Martens has reminded us,[5] Christ empowered the Christian community to âbindâ or âlooseâ (Matt. 18:15-20), which means that any given Christian community may be more restrictive or more permissive than the exacting expression of Scripture itself. Given that the Holy Spirit has been given to the entire body of Christ, not all community decisions will be universally adopted by all other communities of faith.[6] May we be a people shaped by Godâs Word, and committed to relational exegesis and application in concert with other communities of Godâs people across both history and geography.
As we forge colonies of heaven in the midst of the surrounding cultures of despair, may Godâs word guide us in the shaping of a biblical culture for our time and place. May the watching world say, âWhat kind of god is this, who gives these people in our midst such wisdom and joy?â[7] And may they discover that it is not a god, but the God who inhabits us and is our Wisdom.
[1] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), pp. xi-xii.
[2] 1 Corinthians 12
[3] L. Daniel Hawk, The Violence of the Biblical God: Canonical Narrative and Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2019), 201-203.
[4] Exodus. 21:1-6; Deuteronomy 15:11-18; Mark 14:7
[5] Elmer A. Martens, âMoving from Scripture to Doctrine,â Bulletin for Biblical Research 15.1 (2005): 77â103.
[6] this is one reason why reason must precede tradition in the interpretational hierarchy of scripture, reason, and tradition
[7] Cf., Deuteronomy 4:5-8
I must state as clearly as possible that anyone who gets involved with yoga, and kundalini energy which is the aim of all yoga, is making a very, very big mistake. No matter how committed a Christian may be, pastor or lay person alike, when a believer chooses to involve himself or herself with the world of the occult, including any and all levels of yoga practice, for âexerciseâ or otherwise, very powerful spontaneous demonic manifestations can and do oftentimes occur. Many ignorant people say that yoga exercises can be separated from yoga philosophy. This simply is not true. It is a well known fact that yoga postures/poses are the outworking of occult philosophy. Yoga is an occult practice. It is the basis of the Hinduism. Westernized as âBreath Religionâ, âThe Science of Breathâ, and âTranscendental Meditationâ it leads individuals to believe the great lie of human âgodhoodâ. Yoga is demonic in origin, it comes from the teachings of demons, and it stands vehemently opposed to the God of the Bible and to every Christiansâ faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Yoga, even done as merely an âexerciseâ, has the power to produce occult phenomena dangerous enough to undo the human psyche. Sadly, countless people, including many undiscerning Christians, believe that yoga can be done as exercise or as an integrative worship practice – as part of a âtransformative processâ of drawing âcloser to the Divineâ. Nothing could be further from the truth.
âKundalini is the mainstay of all yoga practices.â â Hans Ulrich Reiker, The Yoga of Light: Hatha Yoga Pradipika, New York: Seabury Press, 1971, p. 101
Before moving on to anything further, letâs establish the agreed upon background.
Second, letâs establish that neither myself nor the quoted author are arguing that any movement is inherently evil. There is nothing inherently evil about raising the middle finger. But⊠what is it that makes that gesture evil?
Theoretically (and realistically) someone could not know the significance of that gesture and raise their middle finger with no malicious intent. But hereâs the point⊠for some time folks who perceive the lack of comprehension will not respond to that gesture, but at some point someone is going to punch them.
The answer to my previous question is that there is contextual agreement upon the significance of a movement. I raise my palm up to you when youâre running toward me and you will know that I am indicating you should stop, though that same movement would have meant, âGreetings,â if you met a Lakota Sioux in 1824. The yoga postures were designed and communicated by spirit entities and they, in agreement with previous and contemporary humans, have invested those movements with significance that the demonic entities treat very legalistically. This significance has persisted for millennia, and is not about to be let go of by those behind their revelation to humans (c.f., 1 Enoch 9:5-7).
A yoga pose, accidentally struck, is a non-thing, a triviality, an accident. But yoga poses regularly practiced are the waving of a flag in the spiritual realm. They will attract attention, whether you wave that flag with intent or not.
But there is more to it even than that. Just as few know much about Kinesiology and yet is has an effect, just as putting oneâs shoulders back will enhance breathing compared to doubling over and hunching oneâs shoulders, the yoga postures are designed with an awareness that humans rarely possess about the effects each pose has on receptivity to spiritual activity, and the enhancement or alignment of âenergiesâ in the body that are often unperceived.
The entire thrust of Godâs commandments suggest that His children are to be aware of the spiritual realm but permit God alone to mediate our interaction with it. The practice of sorcery, divination, necromancy, and pharmakeia for man-initiated connection/communication with the spirit realm is prohibited with prejudice. While we want to deny it, the adversaries know that this is precisely what yoga is for, and they are encouraging its growth among us at every opportunity.
Swami Sivasiva Plani wrote in 1991,
A small army of yoga missionaries â hatha, raja, siddha and kundalini â beautifully trained in the last 10 years, is about to set upon the western world. They may not call themselves Hindu, but Hindus know where yoga came from and where it goes. (âAn Open Letter to Evangelicals,â in Hinduism Today, January 1991)
Sannyasin Arumugaswami asserts, âHinduism is the soul of YogaâŠ.A Christian trying to adapt these principles will likely disrupt their own Christian beliefs.â
As I mentioned previously, the argument is not that any movement (or breathing pattern) is in and of itself inherently evil. No, everything God created is good, and every good and every perfect gift comes down from the Father of Lights who is above.
I think, however, that we too often forget what evil is: the twisting of what was created for good away from Godâs intent. The variety of ways in which this truth works itself out in our lives is too seldom recognized, which is unfortunate because its contemplation is quite revelatory.
To establish the interplay at work here, letâs take an extreme example, so clear and evident that it will illumine our perception when analyzing more murky examples. Marital intimacy and fornication are the same movement. God created this âmovementâ and He clearly intended it for good, so what is it that makes marital intimacy one of the greatest goods we can experience and extra-marital relations wrongâwith a spectrum of wrong extending to some of the worst evils we can contemplate, and yet still the same movement?
Clearly intent is a major factor, but it is not just intent. For example, had we lived in 1st century Corinth, we would not have imagined that we could wander into the local temple with our spouse, and in the midst of the thousand courtesans the temple housed, engaged in marital intimacy with our spouse to the glory of God, while all around us worshipers of Aphrodite coupled to the glory of a rebellious spirit. And letâs be honest, despite the best of imaginary intentions, if we made that our regular practice, how long do you think it would be before our perspective on what is permissible began to be impacted? Humans are hard-wired to accept what is familiar as acceptable.
Letâs try the typical arguments in favor of yoga out in this context⊠So if a couple goes to the Temple Aphrodite with no intent to connect with or interact with demonic powers, does not pray to anyone but YHWH, and puts themselves in postures of intimacy only with their spouse, this would be somehow wrong? Well, perhaps not, strictly speaking. Can we agree that it would be at least unwise, and at best confusing? And when one considers that the spiritual powers are territorial in nature (cf. Deut 32:8-9, âWhen the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lordâs portion is his people, Jacob his alloted heritage.â) it becomes evident that place and context matter.
Because of this Deuteronomy 32 worldview, we can understand that location in the Bible has cosmic significance. Ground is either holy, meaning dedicated to Yahweh, or it is the domain of another god. This is why the terms used to refer to the rebellious spirits in Scripture are often those of geographic dominion: âthe prince of the kingdom of Persia,â âprincipalities,â ârulersâ (Daniel 10:13; Eph 6:12).
This worldview is reflected in many places in the Bible. For instance, in the Old Testament the book of Daniel refers to foreign nations being ruled by divine âprincesâ (Dan. 10:13, 20â21). Another example: When David was running from King Saul, he was forced out of Israel into Philistine territory. In 1 Samuel 26:19, David cried, âThey have driven me out from the LORDâs land to a country where I can only worship foreign godsâ (GNT). David wasnât switching gods. He also wasnât denying that God was present everywhere. But Israel was holy ground, the place that belonged to the true God. David was stuck in the domain of another god. [Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World And Why It Matters]
Old Testament era people knew this: think of Naaman taking Israeli ground back with him to Syria (2 Kings 5:17-18). This was clearly Paulâs view as well, âNo, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. [or stretch the stretch of demons in the house of demons] You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy?â No, rather, âflee from idolatryâ! (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).
So, while we might call it a âyoga studio,â the reality is that this is a pagan temple, and we are as proscribed from engaging in what God intended for good there as we are at the temple Paul refers to. Eating and drinking, moving and stretching, and sexual intimacy are all created by God for good, but location, intent, association, and community all matter.
But what about this question? âWhat happened to the redemption theology we discussed back in the day – Christians through the Holy Spirit and practice can redeem the intents of evil, turning for good what Satan intended for bad?â
Indeed! We were redeemed in order to be redemptive. Nothing has happened to this imperative in my theological understanding. However, context, intent, location, association, community, and culture all make a difference. In the case of sexual intimacy, redemption means pulling it out of the public eye. In the case of eating and drinking, redemption means doing so in God-honoring settings, according to the rules He gave, and in accordance with needs and balanced desires. In the case of movement, it is theoretically possible to imitate yoga moves in your own home, independent of anyone elseâs intention and practice, except…if you do some research you will discover not just that these movements themselves are flag signals in the spiritual realm, but that they are intentionally designed to open one up to influence and interaction. The details of this go beyond what I am comfortable discussing in a public forum, and frankly, if you decide to look into it, I would recommend doing so with another trusted brother or sister. This will take you some very uncomfortable places.
So, God created movement, envisioned stretching, and wanted us to glory in exercising the bodies He created and the wonder that they are: all to His praise and His glory. He also revealed some information and hid other information. It was rebellious spirit-realm-dwellers who began to reveal additional but only partial information that God had not revealed (cf. Gen 3:1-7; 6:1-5; 1 Enoch 6-10), and I think we are wise to remain within the boundaries of what God prescribed and proscribed.
That having been said, there is something called Praise Moves, which takes the idea of healthy movement and stretching and intentionally situates those movements within worship of the One True God. I have felt very ambivalent about this organization, even though the founder is a former yoga master, and is adamantly opposed to the yoga. But your challenge, Will, confirmed to me as I thought this through that it is possible to redeem the concept of healthy movement, so long as it is entirely disconnected from the practice of yoga, and situated within the context of Christian worship, rather than demonic obeisance. Itâs still not my thing, but thatâs neither here nor there.
This post was originally written in 2016, but I was having considerable formatting issues with it that I couldn’t seem to resolve, so I decided to start over from scratch, and it is therefore now re-posted. I remain in complete agreement with what I wrote back then.
Abstract: Wearing culturally-developed tzitzit on oneâs belt loops is a valid manner of honoring the command of Num. 15:38 and Deut. 22:12, but is not a literal fulfillment of the commandment. All things considered, for Gentile believers it is likely not the most well-advised manner of honoring this instruction. Additional reflection may yield a more advantageous and multiple-commandment-balancing approach.
âSpeak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner.â Numbers 15:38
âYou shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourselfâ Deuteronomy 22:12
The command regarding tassels ought to instruct all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile. The question of how it ought to instruct may depend upon on oneâs ethnicity, time or place.
I would assert, for example, that a Jewish man (or woman, potentially) wearing a tallit kitan or using a tallit gadol with tzitzit attached is a valid keeping of this command, and that a Gentile doing so may be a valid keeping of this command.
I would also posit that a Gentile wearing culturally-developed tzitzit on oneâs belt loops is a valid manner of honoring the command, but not a literal fulfillment (or keeping). All things considered, I would also suggest it is likely not the most well-advised manner of honoring this instruction due to reasons of potential misunderstanding, misapplication, and offense.
Nevertheless, we see from the text that God considered it important for His people and we might observe that the principle behind this case law related to: remembrance, identity, and witness. Furthermore, that the keeping of the command assisted the Israelites in the practice of walking in godliness, and promoted a sense of belonging and community. Could anyone argue that todayâs Gentile believers donât also need this?! Additional reflection may yield a more advantageous and multiple-commandment-balancing approach to honoring this instruction.
I am, therefore, seeking an application of the command regarding tassels that is:
Historically speaking, it is of great interest to note that at the time when God gave this commandment, everyone in the Ancient Near East (ANE) wore tassels on their garmentsâIsraelite and non-Israelite. The fringe functioned as oneâs signature (pressing the fringe into clay in the same manner as signet rings came to be used), as a sign of your prestige, and were a method of identification or sign of belonging (to a class, family, or tribe). The Israelitesâ fringes were to be a distinctive application of a normative cultural expectation.
If one were to argue that wearing tassels on oneâs belt loops is a direct fulfillment of the command and that this is necessary, I would ask, âWhere is the parapet around your roof?â (Deuteronomy 22:8)
Similarly, wrapping teffilin is a valid method of honoring, or helpful symbolic application in the interest of keeping the commands of Deut. 6:8; 11:18, but it does notâin and of itselfâfulfill the commandment. How can we prove this? Because we are also told in the same language that the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the redemption of the first born âshall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyesâ (Ex 13:9, 16).
In my personal edition of the Morning Prayers I attempted to capture the heart of these commands in the following manner: âToday, Father, may your words be always in front of my eyes; may my hands be engaged in the practice of your commands.â There is a wide variety of ways in which to keep this injunction; observing Unleavened Bread is among them, and the phrasing of the commandment to let this observance be a sign on your hand and memorial between your eyes speaks more to observing the festival with intention than with a physical practice of writing the date of Unleavened Bread on our hand or something similar.
So long as one recognizes that wrapping tefillin is not the actual keeping of the commandment, it remains a helpful spiritual discipline, but once one begins to think that in the practice of wrapping tefillin you have satisfied the intent of the commandment, problems develop.
Given that:
I think it is more than well-advised to practice the command in a manner that does not potentially lay a stumbling block in the path of my brother the Jew (saved or unsaved: one thinks of the reaction of UMJC folks to Gentiles wearing tzitzit in general and specifically to wearing them on the belt loops) or the misinformed Gentile Christian, who perceives it as coming back under the law.
For the last couple of years I have worn a blue and white bracelet as my manner of honoring the tzitzit (and tefillin) command. I am not entirely satisfied (theologically nor practically) with a tzitzit bracelet, but it was a healthy step in the right direction (in response to having become a stumbling block to my Synagogue President neighbor, even though wearing tzitzit âproperlyâ on a tallit kitan).
I am entertaining ideas like embroidering 3 white and one blue line on the sleeves of my shirts, or attaching a fringe that is clearly different from the traditional Jewish tying of the tzitzit to the corners created by the vents of a camp-style shirt. I donât always wear un-tucked, vented shirts, however, so I lean toward the embroidery idea, as this is non-offensive and within the bounds of normative cultural expectation (one thinks of logos on shirt sleeves) that is nevertheless distinctive.
Imagine if every man in our congregations wore shirts with the âtzitzit logoâ on the edges/wings (canaphim, c.f. Malachi 4:2 & Numbers 15:38) of their sleeves! Think of the identity-lending power, and the community-belonging power of this! Invest that practice with the significance of fulfilling Deut. 6:8 and one is keeping the commandment in a way that is faithful to Godâs intent while also conscious of the commands, âYou shall not curse a deaf man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall revere your God; I am the LORDâ (Lev 19:14), and âBuild up, build up, prepare the way, Remove every obstacle out of the way of My peopleâ (Is 57:14).
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this sleeve logo idea is probably the application most consistent with the spirit of the command regarding tzitzit. Think about it: our culture is familiar with all football jerseys being the same and yet having distinct identification markings, both in color and logo. Logos have become ubiquitous on a variety of culturally normative clothing styles. To put a distinct arrangement of white and blue threads on the sleeves of a shirt (sleeves being the closest thing to âwings/cornersâ we have on contemporary clothing) references a familiarity with the most recently common observance of the command (rabbinically defined tzitzit), honors the commandment, offends no one, and yet retains the reminding, identifying, community-building power of the original command in its Bronze Age context.
How shall todayâs believing Laplander apply this command? I donât know, but they ought to be asking that question. And the eventual result will be a culturally diverse, yet commandment-honoring keeping of Godâs law that testifies both to the âhouse of prayer for all nationsâ reality of Godâs people, but also to the coalescing power and identity-giving nature of being âimitators of God therefore like dearly beloved children.â
P.S. It occurs to me that I have elsewhere expressed some of what undergirds the above in a very succinct manner:
If love emphasizes people and law emphasizes principle, without the dynamic interplay of both aspects of Godâs character, we get an unhealthy (i.e., sinful) imbalance. Therefore, if it is lawful, âso far as it depends on you,â to âlive peaceably with all,â then it seems it would be loving to use language [or halacha] that puts, âno obstacle in anyoneâs way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry.â
________________________________________________________________
Background on fringes as normative ANE dress:
Long-ing For Life 