Ignorance vs. Rebellion

What is the difference between ignorance and rebellion?

In our culture there seems to be more of a similarity than a difference. Ignorance is equated with some form of naive stupidity, "ignorant fool", and rebellion with a similar notion of naive defiance. Actually, I think, the only difference between the two is a level of respect that we hold for the rebel, who at least fights for his individuality and perspective, over and above the ignorant man who's blind to any kind truth or view.

Social constructs aside though, there is a strong difference between these two words. Ignorance, as we know, is actually lack of knowledge, which is different from stupidity or foolishness. For example, I am ignorant about the mechanics of rocket science. In fact, I know so little of the subject that the previous sentence probably doesn't even make good sense. Does this make me a fool? Does it make me stupid? No. Although so scientists may snub their noses at us non-educated folk, the lay ignorance of rocket science is not stupidity at all. Rather it is just immaturity in a specific subject, lack of illumination, of education. Rebellion, on the other hand, has to do with purposefully rejecting or revolting against a particular knowledge. Whether it be the rebel against government, societal norms, proper grammer, or against one's own friends and family. Rebellion may be characterized as purposeful ignorance, in that it is a type of ignorance and, in fact, it appears similar to plain old, garden variety ignorance, but it is an ignorance with agency and diliberation.

It may make sense, then, to fix the modern understanding of ignorance. It may serve us to view ignorance as a stance of humility and rebellion as pride. If this were the case, would we not have more regard and compassion for ignorance and more of a willingness to nurture and accept, rather than outcast and admonish? Might we even see the apparent rebellion in a person as possible ignorance, to the extent that we would not react in hatred or offense, but in understanding and love?

You may be wondering where this is going. Well, I'll show you. This is a bit of a long passage, but please read through it and meditate on it before moving past.

1 Timothy 1:5-15

The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and purjurers- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in IGNORANCE and UNBELIEF. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.

Forgive my interpretation of this if you think it flawed, but I see a dramatic paradigm shift here that needs to be accepted and revamped in the church and in society. How is it that we (the church and the entire culture) have become these "teachers of the law that don't know what we're talking about?" How have we become so elitist and condemning to see ignorance as a thing to be discriminated against and admonished? Especially within the church, we tend to treat everyone as a rebel, as if the "sin" that they are involved in is completely purposeful and curable by a slap on the wrist. What is Paul saying here?

I think he's saying, STOP. Stop holding people under this law as if they are not called righteous and faithful by thier God despite thier (and your) ignorance. Not that law and doctrine are not valid entities, though I would question the extent to which we use them today. But that law is for the "rebels". I hope you're catching what I'm throwing here, not that there isn't a serious sin problem in our hearts and not that we don't transgress God's law of perfection every single moment. BUT, that is not our identity. Our identity is, as Paul's was, "faithful". Paul thanks God that, despite his sin, God saw him as faithful. He thanked God for mercy shown to him in his ignorant sinfulness.

What if we did this? What if we stopped assuming rebellion in eachother (whether it's Christian to Christian or person to person) and started loving people in their ignorance....ESPECIALLY since we're in ignorance ourselves, since we don't have it all figured out and we certainly have our "bad days" where we are in ignorance to the very things we were so sure about a couple months ago. Praise God that he does not hold us to a law or creed or doctrine. Praise God that, when we come to him broken, he doesn't refer us to a list of "5 steps to recovery" or, worse, condemn us for our sin and turn us away. What does God see? God sees a broken and incomplete heart trying to place things in order, trying to gather the scattered pieces, in complete ignorance of how they go together. God sees ignorance, not rebellion. This is why he can call us beloved and not lawbreaker, son and not outcast, faithful and not wicked.

Again, for those with sensative ears, I'm not advocating a rejection of rebellion at all. No, rebellion exists. I rebel, you rebel, everyone rebels. Everyone does things they know are wrong. Rebellion is alive in our culture and in our church and it needs to be dealt with as Paul describes in other letters, lovingly and with great conviction. We need to be a holy people, because we serve a holy God and he calls us to be holy, to live up to our calling as sons and daughters. But, rebellion should not be the first and only thought. Rebellion should not be the form that all sin takes. Therefore, sin should not be treated, no matter the case, as a symptom to a rebellious heart. Sin should be treated gently and in complete love, having a great respect and hope for the person's good. Sin should be treated, first and foremost, as immaturity. Not the type of immaturity where we are "the mature ones" and the sinner is "the immature", but the type that has compassion (suffering with another).

My prayer for us, for the church and for culture, is that we would embrace eachother in humility and in a desire to see our lives illuminated and changed by the glorious love and character of God. I pray that we would not treat the sinner, the unbeliever, the doubter, the adulterer, the (you fill in the blank) as such, but as beloved, as fellow struggler, fellow beggar, as ignorant and not rebellious. That we would stop trying to fix people with our doctrine and law and, instead, love people where they're at and compassionately point them toward the Gospel of hope, of a God that redeems us in our sin and unfaithfulness.

So, don't get caught up in the meaningless talk, in the divisions and controversies, in the condemnation, in further damaging people who are already damaged. Instead, get caught up in restoration, in the celebration of a gloriously broken and redeemed creation and the God who loves it without measure. Get caught up in grace that sees ignorance and not rebellion, that sees love and not hate, that hungers for reconciliation not abomination. Love.