that “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”89
As Bruce observed,
The key to all Christ’s teaching on the Sabbath, therefore, lies in His conception of the original design of that divine institution … His doctrine was this: The Sabbath was meant to be a boon to man, not a burden; it was not a day taken from man by God in an exacting spirit, but a day given by God in mercy to man—God’s holiday to His subject; all legislation enforcing its observance having for its end to insure that all should really get the benefit of the boon—that no man should rob himself, and still less his fellow-creatures, of the gracious boon.90
Jesus also claimed the right for himself, and ultimately for his followers, to alter the practice of the Sabbath to ensure that it continued to serve its original purpose.91 Such alterations eventually included opposing any man-made regulations that diverted the Sabbath from that purpose, expanding its observance to Gentile believers, giving it a new name, and even changing the day of its observance.
In dealing with Sabbath observance in this way, Jesus practised and illustrated one of the most important principles of managing orderly and constructive change—conserving the original rationale and purpose of a practice or institution while simultaneously changing it in certain ways to accommodate new demands and circumstances. At first blush, we may think that the idea of conserving something by changing it is illogical and contradictory. But Jesus, particularly in relation to Sabbath observance, teaches us that conservation and change can be, and in some instances must be, complementary.
In criticizing the Pharisaic approach to the law (including laws governing the Sabbath), Jesus made it clear that it was not his intention to destroy the Law; rather it was his intention, by reinterpreting and changing its application, to fulfill the Law.92 Achieving and maintaining this balance between conservation and change are more easily done if the defenders of the old and the advocates of the new recognize and appreciate their respective roles in conserving and adapting the institution to changing conditions, i.e., see their roles as complementary rather than adversarial.
As Bruce plaintively asks, “When will young men and old men, liberals and conservatives, broad Christians and narrow, learn to bear with one another; yea, to recognize each in the other the necessary complement of [their] own one-sidedness?”93
Implications for Us
1. Unlearning and learning
When we come to Jesus we should be open to unlearning and learning under his tutelage. The disciples all had their faults, but to their immense credit they were teachable, open to the unlearning and learning that Jesus had to offer. Which raises the question, are we? Most of us are much more highly and broadly educated than the disciples. This should be a blessing, but it may also render us less open to the teaching and influence of Jesus because we think we know. Unlearning often needs to precede learning on both the religious and political fronts.
In my own case, for example, I grew up with a fairly narrow conception of what the Christian faith was about, namely that it was primarily the means to my own personal spiritual well-being and salvation. If I had been one of the disciples and held this one-dimensional conception of faith, my unlearning and learning under the tutelage of Jesus would likely have included,
• Unlearning the narrowness and singularity of this vertical perspective of faith without in any way abandoning the importance and necessity of a personal relationship to God through Jesus.
• Learning to expand my conception and experience of the faith to include its horizontal and social dimensions, i.e., adding the crossbar of the cross to my vertical upright.
On the other hand, if you grew up with a conception of the faith that focused exclusively on its social and horizontal dimension but with little or no appreciation of the necessity of attending to your own personal relationship to God through Christ, your learning and unlearning experience under his tutelage might be the reverse but equally necessary.
2. Visiting the dark side of the moon
As previously mentioned, Jesus’ approach to guarding his initial followers against the extreme teachings and practices of the Pharisees illustrates the merit of taking a hard look at the dark side of the moon—the image and results of pushing any philosophy of life to its extreme—and utilizing that visualization as a warning and a caution to avoid the negative and destructive aspects of that extreme.
Jesus’ use of this approach provides us with an excellent example of how to guard religious believers today against the extremes to which we in our age are susceptible. But this approach is also highly applicable to guarding political ideologues and activists against the dangers of political extremism.
Political pragmatists, for example, proud of not being committed to any ideology or fixed set of principles and striving only to do the right thing under the circumstances, are well advised to take a hard look at what that pragmatic position looks like and leads to when pushed to its extreme. In the extreme, it can lead to a completely cynical and unprincipled politics of expediency—weathervane politics and government that merely twist and turn in response to every wind that blows. And is not that extreme pragmatic position something to resist, back away from, and avoid association with? And shouldn’t you warn others to do likewise?
Or perhaps you are of the more liberal or socialistic political persuasion and place great faith in the power and instrumentalities of the state and its capacity to protect and advance human well-being. Certainly there is merit in recognizing this positive potential of the state and the utilization of its agencies for the betterment of humanity. But liberals and social democrats are also well advised to take a hard look at what that statist position looks like and leads to when pushed to its extreme. It is the expansion and deification of the state, carried to its extreme, that has led to some of the most dictatorial, brutal, and oppressive governments the world has ever known, such as the Communist regimes of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-un. Is not that extreme statist position something to resist, back away from, and avoid associating with? And shouldn’t you warn others to do likewise?
Or perhaps we are of a conservative political persuasion. We place great faith in the power and potential of markets and freedom of enterprise to advance the well-being of human beings. Or perhaps we are conservative revolutionaries who resist various aspects of modernity and advocate changes designed to restore preferred aspects of a golden past.94 These are legitimate and worthwhile positions when held and practised in moderation but dangerous when pushed to the extreme—capable of legitimizing greed, exploitation, unconstrained consumerism, environmental degradation, and even fascism—extremes that the responsible conservative will want to resist, back away from, and avoid associating with, while warning others to do likewise.
3. Balancing conservation and change
As previously mentioned, in dealing with Sabbath observance as he did, Jesus practised and illustrated yet another important principle of managing orderly and constructive change—the principle of conserving the original rationale and purpose of a practice or institution by simultaneously changing it in certain ways to accommodate new developments and circumstances.
So suppose we want to change a practice or an institution that in our judgment needs to be reformed. Using Jesus’ approach to the simultaneous preservation and reform of Sabbath observance as a model, we should identify the original purpose or rationale and whether
