Oh
my..you fogot
"mixed bathing"--we were not allowed to go swimming with the opposite
sex--ever!
What a trip down memory lane! I'm glad to be rid of all that junk. There were
some good people who lived at "level six" but most who now remain in
that subculture are bitter judgmental ugly people and I am glad to have escaped
it all!
(By the way I am a level zero person attending a level one church)
James Petticrew said...
Not
sure I fit in any of these categories neatly. Have a look at this for some
POMOS struggling for this kind of stuff
http://www.flowerdust.net/?p=126
Kathy Drury said...
Interesting. I felt like I grew up strict not being able to ride my bike on
Sunday (late 70's early 80's) so I guess I wasn't really being put in a very
legalistic spot compared to many others. I can find pretty quickly just by
scanning the questions where I fall in the scale and in a way I was a bit
surprised to see how legalistic I am not.
There
you go again Drury shaking up dust that was best settled. I had forgotten all
those days when women (why was it mostly women) had to dress like nuns and we
couldn't do anything that even had a hint of fun in it. My wife and I had to
slip on our wedding rings after we left the church as if we were doing
something shameful!
I say good riddance to ALL legalism and I'm glad to have a grace-based church
who loves people no matter what they do.
And I agree with Janet above that while there were SOME genuinly
sweet people who lived under this bondage the majority of them were carnal,
selfish people who took delight in judging others for falling short of their
own standards. I am glad my church, my family and my denomination escaped this
bondage to the flesh.
Except for one issue I'm a zero level person through and through.
How
come any rules at all are considered legalism? That said, I think you left out
a category, Scriptural? How Scriptural are you? After all, Scripture does talk
about overeating, drinking alcohol until you are drunk, gambling, etc. It
doesn't talk about cards, tv sets, women's stockings,
etc.
I'm almost ready to believe "zero legalism" borders on sin according
to the definitions you have chosen.
Maybe that is a topic for another time. Like, level zero spirituality, I show
up for church because the Chancellor makes me come, I slouch back back in my boy friend's arms and muddle through until we
leave during the offering (before the sermon starts so as not to interrupt the
minister).
Level 1, I believe in God, go to church on Sunday and study my Sunday School
lesson.
Maybe that is really where the focus needs to be. Maybe the focus in the
holiness church has been on the negative (legalism) now for too long and folks
can't get out of the rut. I know for myself, I'm beginning to hate holiness and
conservative folks again! It is amazing how one good pastor's work can be
destroyed so quickly by anal people!
I'm
just going to throw this out there...do you think it's possible that
"legalism" (with all of it's negative
connotation) has more to do with an attitude than with action? Can you believe
that Christians should avoid jewelry and not be a legalist, or that anything
goes, and be one? I would argue you could. Thoughts?
The
Bible is clear in condemning immodesty or wearing jewlery
or women speaking up in church, or for that matter even going to church to pray
without a head covering, yet the Bible does not condemn drinking wine--how do
the "Bible alone" types deal with this? My experience is the "We
just enforce the Bible's rules" types pick and choose which rules in the
Bible to enforce and ignore many others so their arguments don't hold water.
Aaron:
(and per the blog warden, I'm not suppose to address
you but this is a question to you not a dagger so maybe the warden will show
mercy)
Do you mean 1 Corinthians 6:12, All things are lawful unto me, but all things
are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought
under their power.
Surely
all doesn't mean all, does it?
My
memories of the church in the '50's were of a level six legalism. I think it is
fair to say we weren't that crazy weird in relationship to the larger culture;
I also remember blue laws, dress codes in school, etc. I would suggest that
many (Nazarene) churches today would fall into some mixture of level two and
level one legalism, if legalism is the right word. I think it is worth pointing
out that Frank Moore from Mid-America (Naz. U.) wrote
his book Dismantling the Myths as a response to college students who were
living in level zero, at least in some areas.
Is worldliness an issue worth looking at? David Wells, I recall, wrote that
"Worldiness is what any culture does to make sin
look normal, and righteousness look strange." The New Testament church
struggled with legalism, but also with worldliness, and as far as I'm
concerned, the Corinthians messed things up for us to this very day.
My issue is this: if you align yourself with a holiness church, you need to be
willing to live by her collective conscience, for example, taking the "Nazarite vow" where wine is concerned, or whatever. Is
the church, has the church ever been right on every issue? Of course not! But
look at what is happening to churches where they not only threw out the rules,
but adopted a cut and paste approach to belief in scripture. I think if we made
a renewed committment to living up to the clear
teachings of scripture (Ephesians 5, Collossians 3,
Matthew 5-7, etc.) a lot of this would become a moot point.
I've said too much, so I'll shut up now.
I
read this yesterday and what is haunting me is question #5--asking if we tend
to move down this list then “freeze in” and say "No more--the Bible in
clear on these" (when the Bible was clear on things we had already moved
past--as one post here remarked).
I certainly never wanted to stay at level 5 where I grew up--I HAD to have more
fresh air than that. But through my life I've moved all the way to level 2 but
I want to kwwp my children from moving to level
one... THAT is what is haunting me... I've moved three levels in my lifetime
(some of those had clear Bible teaching, like divorce) but now I want to
restrain my kids from moving one level... this haunts me--especially on the
alcohol issue.
The
question is not what you or I think about these issues. The question is 'what
does the Bible say?' I can not believe those who are leaving comments proudly
proclaiming they are level zero people! The sad thing about this is apparently
they are from "holiness" churches or at least were at some point.
According to Drury's scale, I don't fit neatly in any one category, but I am
not going to simply label someone who is more conservative than me as being a
legalist. I know many of these people who are very Godly individuals.
The Bible clearly teaches that Christians are to be different from the world.
Not just for the sake of being different, but because we are whole heartedly
committed to Christ. The problem with this discussion is that it is all about
self.
Yes, Rules + Regulations - Relationship = Rebellion, Anger + Legalism. Yes,
there are those who emphasize rules and regulations and miss the relationship.
The relationship with God must come first. Jesus didn't condemn the
Pharisees cleaning the outside; he condemned them for cleaning the outside up
without first cleaning the inside. Both will happen if one is whole-heartedly
surrendered to God.
A relationship with God will affect your life. A whole hearted surrender to God
will cause you to want to live according to His standards.
You can laugh and make fun of some of those things mentioned in those upper
levels - and yes some are extreme - however, remember that most of these things
came from people who sincerely wanted to obey God. Yes, they may have went a
little overboard on a few things, but may I suggest that with the Wesleyan
church, and the Nazarene, and the Free Wesleyan, and.... the pendulum has swung
far in the other direction. While getting rid of a few of the
"non-essentials" a few essentials have been cast by the way side as
well. Now one would be hard pressed at many of these churches to find any
difference between them and any of the local "generic" Christian
churches. Is there any difference? The doctrinal sheet of beliefs may differ,
but if these beliefs are not lived out in the lives of those attending is there
truly any difference?
The Methodist church has strayed very far from what it was founded upon. I'm
afraid that the Wesleyan, Nazarene, Free Methodist's etc... are
not far behind. John Wesley would roll over in his grave if he knew the
Methodist church was ordaining homosexuals...the Methodist church of today
bears little or no resemblance of what is was founded upon.
Read our history. Find out about what we were founded upon. Yes there have been
abuses, but we have always believed that entire sanctification will clean up
ones life.
"The Lord does not give me rules. He makes His standard very clear, and
if my relationship to Him is that of love, I will do what He says without any
hesitation. If I hesitate, it is because I love someone else in competition
with Him, viz. myself." - Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest
Trust
me, holiness is a farse and
only a method of control similar to the muslim
community!
Siarlys
Jenkins said...
There
were holy people in the original Covenant who had detailed rules like this.
They were called Pharisees. There was a carpenter who became a preacher and a
rabbi who arose among them and said not to be entangled by these rules, because
what is in the heart is what counts. That makes it hard to categorize people as
in or out of the group, but that is what Jesus taught.
Pew Potato said...
A
few years back, Jerry Jenkins wrote a book called "Hedges: Loving Your
Marriage Enough to Protect It".
His advice is simple: plant preventative hedges around your marriage. These
hedges are practical ways to avoid compromising situations and giving
temptation a foothold in your life.
1. When he meets, dines or travels with an unrelated woman, he always adds a
third person to the group. When this is impossible, he is always the first to
tell his wife.
2. He is careful about touching women. He embraces only relatives or close
friends, and only in the company of others.
3. If he pays a woman a compliment, it is on clothes or hair, not the woman
herself.
4. He avoids flirtation and suggestive conversations, even in jest.
5. He often reminds himself and his wife that he remembers their wedding vows.
6. From the time he gets home to the time the children go to bed, he does no
work in order that he might spend quality time with the family.
Some might consider his guidelines legalistic. But he put those rules in place
in his life to protect his relationship with his wife.
When it comes to protecting our relationship with God, we may also need to put
up boundaries - perhaps people in an earlier generation realized that better
than we do.
At
the risk of coach slapping me around for inner-comment commenting, I'll clarify
my idea.
"Is legalism more of an attitude?" probably shouldn't be tied to that
verse in 1st Corinthians. For one thing, as I recall, Paul isn't stating that
as a matter of fact, but a rhetorical device, so rooting it in that would be
dangerous. Additionally, I'm not arguing that we can or can't do anything -
that is, I'm not saying that a list of rules is good or bad.
Here's what I'm going for:
I think probably everyone has a set of rules. "Level zero" Christians
get as outraged by people like Jerry Fallwell as
"level sixers" get at Don Miller. My notion
is that legalism is a matter of the heart. I would argue that we could define
just about anyone as a legalist if we lose our traditional notions of the word.
Maybe coach should compile a list of rules by which the emergent generation
operates?
1. We will not tell anyone they have to do anything, or permit the action of
anyone who would force their beliefs on others.
2. We will not clearly define our doctrinal beliefs, and we will dismiss any
minister who does. Devisiveness will not be
tolerated.
The list can go on and on.
So the question is, isn't our level of insistance on
adherence to our understanding of "truth" (whether that is specific
Biblical interpretations of the acceptability of dancing, drinking, etc. or
modern life policies like tolerance, open-mindedness, political correctness, etc.)what
can really define us as legalistic or not? It isn't the actions on the list,
but the attitude that puts them there.
Maybe I'm going the wrong way with this?
You
don't need to tell me about legalistic holiness....I'm in the clutches of a
group sworn to destroy me because I will not conform to their beliefs and I
can't get out. They are destroying me in the name of God and holiness. Do not
believe the lie of holiness! At all costs, do not believe the lie of holiness!
Brian Cooper said...
That's
the big question... how should we be different from the world? Can we be
different in actions and be sour grapes by our attitudes? Can we be similar in
our actions (while not committing sin) and be different in our attitudes? While
Christ judge us by our "legalistic" actions or by our attitudes? I
feel that the holiness movement set up "laws" to guide us to holiness
much like the Torah did. Just a modern day Torah. It
was comprised with good intentions but we can take it to
far. The holiness movement was designed to make people holy, not legalistic.
Perhaps we are at a day and age now that we need redefine some of these
boundaries.
Aaron
is right on target: legalism is an attitude, not a structure. We generally tend
to define a legalist (generally) as "anyone who is considerably more
conservative (however you define that) than I am."
P. S. I notice a new feature on a Wesleyan blog.
Trolls! Pray for sunlight, that they might turn to stone :).
daniel said...
I'd
like to take the time to answer your final questions:
1. Yes, most of the professing christians I know are
at level one. If you meant level six, My grandmother and her children are at or
close to this level (including my mom).
2. I've moved from about level 4 to level 0 in my beliefs. In my actions I vary
from 1-3. I don't have a TV, but I do watch movies. I'll drink an occassional beer; but, I don't smoke or do drugs. However,
I absolutely refuse to condemn others for doing these things. It is not my
place to judge my fellowman (that's God's job) - and the fastest way I can
think of to turn people off from the message of Christ is to start criticizing
these insignificant things.
3. I don't see that culture has moved. It flirts with going up and down; but,
people are people. The same groups of people existed 50 years ago as exist now.
The same God loved us then as does now.
4. That's a long list of rules and I don't want to get into the extensive
search for verses I know but haven't memorized chapter:verse.
5. I think a lot of emergents are proclaiming "Love God with all your
heart mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." Our
further higher morality is, "If a man asks for your coat, give him your
tunic as well. If a man asks you to walk one mile with him, walk two." and
"Love your enemy, do good to those who hate you." and "Go into
all the world and preach the good news".
6. History goes in cycles. We have a pendulum swing of morality. The boomers
tend to see things as a "slippery slope". But, historically this is innacurate.
7. I don't think morality is up to the individual but is up to God. It is also
not up to the church. If a brother is causing harm to himself and to those
around him, it is our job, not only as his fellow church members but as his
FRIENDS, to intervene. This isn't legalism, this is Love.
8. 'worldliness' is a word used to express fear that society will have negative
effects on our children. This fear is very warranted -
however, keeping your children from exposure to the world is a bit like keeping
your children from exposure to vaccines. It generally does more harm than good.
Vaccines introduce pathogens to your blood wich help
you build immunity to disease. Small doses of the world will help a child
become immune to the pressures of the world. Resistance must be built or
children will be left without the proper mechanisms/defenses to deal with the
world. A complaint I often hear from the generation before me is that us
"kids" grow up too slow. Part of what needs to be understood is that
we took so long "growing up" because we were never exposed to the
catalysts of maturity as children. We had to learn the world all on our own
because our parents, with the best intentions, sheltered us from
difficult/defining experiences.
9/10. I think I've answered these above.
You
never listed porn on this list--I know an increasing number of Christian
couples (and many more single males) who use porn "moderatly"
and accept it just like others accepted watching TV shows that depicted
behaviors they would not themselves do. In our zero-level group we try to help
others use porn moderately just like they use alcohol moderately.
JustKara said...
To
be quite honest I thought you were kidding with this column--the things you
listed in level six sound so bizarre. Are there really people who live like
this and expect others to do so?
But I am familiar with some of the "legalism" at the lower levels,
and was raised at level 2-3 and didn't experience "legalism" until I
went to college and seminary in KY.
It seems to me that every generation tries to enforce its own rules on the next
generation but it never works--the younger generation always wins. However, I
would point out that there is another scale you did not give--the "that's
sin" scale. I notice that as younger generations have come to accept a few
beers or a glass of wine and we watch movies our parents would have never
watched, we also have on our “that’s sin” list prohibitions that our parents
violated often. For instance, in the last 20 years child sexual abuse, racism,
sexism, intolerance, unkindness, lack of compassion, mercilessness and
war-making along with the central sin of the younger generations: being
loveless. The older generation often committed these sins with impunity,
even denying they were sinning all the time. So, as generations discard old
prohibitions like the things on your list they also add new sins—and on this
new grading scale the older generations sometimes get failing grades.
My
husband and I "took the test" together and had a long discussion over
dinner tonight on how far we'd come. We feel pretty good about moving from
stage 4 to a more open stage 2.
HOWEVER after reading some of these comments I now wonder if the older people
are right--once you begin this slide it is diffifult
to stop, and almost impossible to expect others to now move beyond all sensible
rules into total liberty where "anything goes." I totally reject
using alcohol, or watching pornography as if behavior doesn't matter at all. It
does. I know this makes me sound judgmental but I am willing to sound that way if
I must--some things are not "personal convictions" that are not a
matter of liberty--they are outright sins and doing them will break our
relationship with God. God help us if we are headed to stage zero--that would
not be "the church" but it would be
-Cindy
daniel said...
Cindy
- I really respect your convictions and agree with you that actions matter a
great deal. If you were a guest in my house, knowing your convictions, I would
not drink around you nor offer you a drink. Also, I would never drink around a
recovering alcoholic. I think Paul was pretty clear about these types of
situations.
One must make a distinction between the sin and the legalistic action.
The reason jewelry was banned (and still is) in some denominations is because
it was thought to lead to Vanity - a sin.
The reason going out to eat on Sunday was banned is because it forced others to
neglect the Sabbath - a sin.
The reason alcohol was (and is) banned is because it leads to Drunkenness - a
sin.
Shall we ban food because it leads to Gluttony, money because it leads to
Greed, and speaking because it leads to Gossip?
Can a person eat food without being a glutton, have money without being greedy,
speak without gossipping and have a beer without
being a drunk?
maybe.
(on the tangent, I don't think anyone can watch porn and not feel Lust - that one's out.)
If
watching porn w/out lust is impossible, we have a hugh
problem for those tasked with looking at porn to save the victims. I guess it
is all about what is in your heart!
When
will the conservative church get out of its cave and live in the real world!
I'm convinced it will be never.
Ken Schenck said...
I
usually make a distinction between legalism and strictness. Like some have
said, the difference in my mind is whether you are doing what you are doing
because you think it glorifies God (abstaining from the "very
appearance" of evil) or whether the rules have become an end in themselves.
So I believe even many Pharisees in Jesus' day were strict (e.g., Nicodemus?)
rather than legalistic.
But ultimately I hate the fact that these are the kinds of things that so many
associate with holiness. What did Jesus say about "out of the heart
proceed..." and "it is not what goes on a (wo)man that makes them unclean" (Schenck paraphrase :-)
Unbelievable!
Can we not see the path we're slidding down?
I am assuming that most who read this blog and post on it come from a Wesleyan background of some
kind. This is a big assumption I know...this weeks
column was at least focused at this group.
Yes, some things may be legalism, however, the
slippery slope has led some posting on here to excuse drinking, drugs, and
porn???
Is sin no longer sin? Some of the issues being discussed have nothing to do
with standards but with out and out sin!
Hebrews 10:26, "if we sin wilfully after that we
have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."
Some of the things that some of you are proudly proclaming
that you do show us just how important some of those "safeguards"
were. I guess some of the "old timers" were right when they warned
that this is the path that would be taken...
tricia said...
Wow
- this post makes me feel really "liberal" and I think of myself as a
"conservative" Christian. I won't even say where I end up on the
scale, but I feel like level zero is way too black and white and many of my
friends and I would agree with the statement but not for the short reason
given.
I think the church can and should be different than the world, but that our
love is what should be so noticeably different, not necessarily our ability to
keep any set of rules - anyone can do that. John Ortberg
talked about that in one of his books, maybe it is just easier to be known by
what we don't do, than to be known by real, authentic, Christ honoring love.
Having said that, I keep lots of rules, but it is because it makes sense or out
of relationship with my heavenly father rather than because they are a list of
rules I have to keep. For example, I try to keep a Sabbath because I believe it
makes sense and pleases God, I am careful about what I
watch because certain things desensitize us or devalue life, sex, etc.
daniel said...
-
I want to apologize.
"So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.
Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves."
Again, my apologies. I really should have kept my
thoughts on these subjects between me and God.
Daniel,
why would you do that? That is 1/2 the problem in the conservative church.
Nobody talks about the truth! The way things really are and that is precisely
why the church is in the rut it is in! Better to have said it and realized an
error then to have kept it to oneself and stayed in error! Iron sharpens iron.
During
this "Passion Week" when we remember what Jesus did for us on the
cross, it would be good for us to remember what he prayed when facing the
cross. His prayer showed us the nature of real consecration to God:
"O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless,
not as I will, but as You will."
Again, I think the problem with this whole discussion is that many are coming
at it from a self-centered point of view. 'Nobody is going to tell me how to
live - rules are legalism!'
There is talk about how relationship is what matters (and this is true), but
how can you have a relationship with God when your life is violating His Word?
When we begin to excuse sin and say "I don't see things that way"
(when referring to what the Bible teaches) one is guilty of creating a god to
suit themselves - one they've created in their own mind who doesn't have any
rules.
Again, I encourage everyone to study the past. Read after men like John Wesley,
William Booth, Samuel Logan Brengle... Read what they
preached and believed. Read about how God used them to turn the world upside.
These men believed that when someone was saved and then sanctified that lives
would be different than those of the world - both inwardly and outwardly. These
men preached certain "standards" to safeguard one from getting to
close to the "world." Everyone one of the denominations that are
Wesleyan Armenian in doctrine had founders who believed this way. Who’s strayed
away??
Yes, there have been those who strayed into legalism - however, it is very
apparent that many have strayed far to the other side of the road as well.
Let's sincerely read God's Word and ask Him "Not my will but thine..."
As for me, I want to be dead to self and alive to Christ. I want to live the
way He wants me to live.
danielml said...
Jon
- that seems like a pretty brutal indictment.
Basically what you're saying is that anyone who doesn't meet your exact
standards of legalism is either legalistic or is a spiritual miscreant.
People who fall on the miscreant side are:
1) Selfish
2) Have no hope of having a relationship with Christ
3) Have not read/do not understand the scriptures
4) Have not read/do not understand church history
5) Are not interested in God's will
====
On that note:
I think it's awesome that you love God and want to be like Christ! I love God
and want to be more like Christ, too!
I'd love to read any of the books you specifically have in mind for people like
me to review. Please email a list to me at danielml@danielml.com
u2canpray said...
A
professor at a recent FLAME event said a Fundamentalist is a person whose
position is defined by what he is against. In that case I do not want to be a
Fundamentalist. I would rather be known for what I am FOR: a pure heart,
brotherly love, etc.
I have been a part of many churches who were in the
level six category except the men wore ties. (My Aunt Rose was a level seven
i.e. red was the color of harlotry, ties were goat ropes, etc.) However, I
found that in every level of legalism from zero to six there are those who have
a passionate relationship with God and those who are far from Him.
In all reality, coming from a somewhat legalistic background myself, it pains
me deeply to talk about all the "standards". It seems such a waste of
precious time.
D.M. Rose said...
The
thing I come to is that wherever you fall on these issues may be more than just
an issue of "What does the Bible say?" and also an issue of how God
created each person to carry out His will.
For instance, most people with the gift of prophecy that I have met typically
lack discretion. They say what God wants them to but do so with such passion
and vigor that it requires someone else, who God also created, to come along
with the gift of mercy and restore them.
I agree with Tricia when I say that this post made me feel liberal.
In our age of pluralism as a large part of our culture I guess part of me wants
to say that the things I consider my "Dogma" should be a short list
and most/all of these other issues are more along the lines of
"opinion" or, maybe, "docrine".
The tension that I describe above can easily be seen within the very discussion
here.
Check out www.gopchristian.blogspot.com if you think that some of the rules
Coach listed are strict. This guys is beyond legalistic.
Keith.Drury said...
FROM THE WARDEN: Let's all be careful in our interchanges with
each other to be gentle and easily entreated... at least post under a pubolic blogger name if you want
to nick sombody personally rather than as
"Anonymous" then if it gets too personal you can "take this
outside" to email conversations.
A little story here. I work at the YMCA and our facilities have a series of
TV's that are displayed above our cardio equipment. We program what channels
are being viewed at any given time to make sure there is a pretty clean
standard. A new member recently posted a complaint card saying that we were
allowing promiscuous programming. The woman saw a commercial for the "Craftmatic" adjustable bed where two people were
sleeping in the same bed. LoL. Now that's being seperate from
the world!!!!!!
Ken Schenck said...
Daniel,
I'm not quite sure how I contradicted you. I think I was saying something kind
of similar from a different direction. I was saying that true holiness is a
matter of the heart and it shows up in the actions. You were saying that it is
not the outward act that is the sin, but the context of the act, yes...
"No food is unclean of itself..."?
daniel said...
Ken,
No worries. I was looking up "the very appearance of evil" and came
across some scripture that essentially says I shouldn't really express my
belief that it's o.k. to drink an occassional beer.
I know to a lot of people these things are very important and I certainly don't
want to criticize their strictness (or flaunt my freedom for that matter).
You didn't contradict me - I just wanted to apologize to those people who are more strict than me. I think their heart is in the right
place.
Does
anyone else notice how many of the old "rules" applied to women? Was
legalism just one more way males dominated and controlled women? Is a lot of
the move “down” this list related to the increasing freedom of women to cease
being an at-home servant to their leading man and their entering the work world
where their normally-dressed husband had been working? Karen
Can
I please have a reference for this. I can't find it.
Thanks
"Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he
approves."
daniel said...
Romans
14:22
I
think we need to be careful when we attribute the term legalism to specific
acts, Leonard Ravenhill said "any thing a church
doesn't like, they call legalism".
My
KJV of Rom 14:22 says happy, not blessed. I think those are two different
things!
But that led to another verse...23:he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith (hehe, it didn't say the law) is sin.
Karen,
I think you may be on to something. I remember a professor one lecture
explaining to us that the "men can only preach" thing really kicked
up after women started moving into the workforce. Now, granted, the Wesleyans
ordained women, but perhaps there was still some
use-the-Bible-to-beat-Betty-back kind of stuff going on with the legal commands
of the holiness churches.
Can someone who was around more in the level five or six days comment on this?
Oh,
and that tricky word in Romans 14:22 is the greek
word makarios - meaning blessed or happy. It is the
same word Christ uses in the sermon on the mount. "Blessed are the
poor..." I don't know if or how that influences the coversation
exactly, but I thought it might help.
Some
of the discussion above (and especially some of the responses deleted by Warden
Drury) has illustrated for me what we probably all already know: when
Christians try to talk about "rules" they get vicious and abusive
with each other. People feel more deeply about their “rules” than they feel
about their doctrine and are far more willing to gasp that a person might even
consider doing something they themselves consider
“sin.” I don’t know what your agenda is Dr. Drury but if it was to illustrate
that having a bunch of church rules are almost impossible to maintain—you have
accomplished that well. However, if you hoped to help people find some common
ground I think you failed, because in our current culture nobody can tell the
individual what to do or not to do—these are all personal matters to people
today when the scolding is COMING to themselves but when people want to scold
OTHERS they are quite willing to denounce behaviors on the lower levels as sin
while justifying their own slot 4-5 notches down from the most strict
“legalists.” I’m tired of talking about rules—an this is
exactly how everyone else in the church feels—so get ready for level one
before long, for we insist on “everyone doing what is right in their own
eyes.”
Personally,
I liked this post Keith. It's always a good idea to test the stuff we assume,
but don't talk about. For me, seeing other people obey "Christian"
laws that I myself don't practice, is a blow to my pride. "Oh, you don't
even watch PG-13 movies?" or "I can't believe you have hour long
devotions every day." It's the same knee jerk jealousy,
that comes when I see guys who are extra-romantic with their girlfriend.
How dare they love and sacrifice more than me. I have to fight that instinct.
Warden
Drury,
I'm done. You showed as best one can why folks don't want holiness anymore when
you deleted posts!
Like I said, even the title, Holiness Manifesto says it all. You have a
document but you have no holiness! Nor will you.
Like I said, the Wesleyan church will officially shut its doors in 5 years!
You can delete that, but you cannot stop your destiny.
Joel said...
Great
discussion! And a pretty fierce one at times too :-)
Just so you know, I would probably fall somewhere
between a 5 and a 6 in these lists of rules, AND I have publicly listed my blogger ID, so no hidden agenda here :-).
Let me try to defend the stricter point of view. First of all, I do share Ken Schenck's concern that holiness not be merely known for
just "things". If holiness is only known for being against ___, then
we have missed the point. And yes, holiness - and ironically legalism! -
ultimately are matters of the heart. Rules as an end to themselves
lead us to spiritual deadness. Any theological belief that doesn't seek to
glorify God is useless. I can also to a sympathize with those who are just
tired of petty bickering. Amen! Brent does have a point.
HOWEVER, I do believe that holiness involves specific lifestyle issues. Any
heart change sooner or later will involve lifestyle changes. I find this in
Scripture.
Take for instance the book of Leviticus. The major theme of Leviticus is
holiness. So, when God calls His people to be holy in Lev. 19, He doesn't just
talk about broad principles. He gets specific...real fast. Read it for
yourself! He covers everything from beard-trimming to swearing to
cattle-breeding to...you name it!
So just as God had a "custom-fit" holiness
message of lifestyle separation from the world for the ancient Israelites, so
too for 2006, God's holiness will involve specific lifestyle distinctions from
the world. Obviously, rules will differ some in the specific application today
vs. back then. AND there may be some disagreement over just how ___ verse
specifically applies to our culture, but as I understand holiness from
Scripture, here's my main point.
You can't really separate the doctrine from the lifestyle.
That's why I have chosen to live a life that might seem "legalistic".
Not because I love rules for rules sake, but because in my desire to please
Jesus, I believe that the broad principle of Holiness in Scripture specifically
applies to my life even in little areas such as dress, entertainment,
and...well... everything! Not to be nit-picking, but like the umpire in Game 7
of the World Series, I want to make the right call on even a smaller issue,
because I think that what's at stake is pretty important.
Check out my sermon on this at www.joelssermons.blogspot.com
And guess what? As I write this I'm not bitter, or trying to be argumentative,
nor am I trying to un-Christianize you. I am, however, giving you a perspective
from someone who is part of the "conservative holiness movement". So
laud me or sue me, that where I stand.
Hey, it's not every day you get to meet a really strict legalist with a
sense of humor!:-)
Ken Schenck said...
I
had an odd turning point in my life on these issues. For example--in a phase of
my life when I didn't wear shorts or date girls who wore pants or had
earrings--I prayed to God to change my mind if I was wrong about my
understanding of standards. I sincerely did not expect Him to do it. I was
praying with Judy Huffman at SWU and really prayed this more because she was counselling me than because I really thought it was
possible. I thought I had God figured out on holiness. Now I kind of chuckle to
myself... God answered the prayer differently than I expected?
A second story from those years is how puzzled I was at one of the professor's
daughters who had really short hair, wore pants and jewelry. Yet she seemed to
have such a better and more vibrant relationship with God than I did. I thought
to myself, if holiness is being filled with the Spirit and the fruit of the
Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience... Then why did she--who didn't look like
I thought a sanctified person should look--have far more of the signs of the
Spirit than I did?
And this is my major critique of so many (not all, to be sure-- children don't
choose where they're born) of those who chose the path of schism in the name of
holiness: How can so many of these be entirely sanctified if the fruit of the
Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness,
faithfulness, and self-control? In my experience, the most zealous for these
superficial things are often the most angry, unkind, gossipy, backbiting,
unloving, and restless people. I fear that many tax collectors and sinners will
enter the kingdom before them.
Thinking in Ohio said...
Question
7—Doesn’t seem like these issues should be up the individual. The Pauline
Epistles (from which many of these themes come) weren’t even written to the
individual but to the “church” which was expected to enforce some standard upon
believers—read 1&2 Timothy, Titus or 1 Corinthians. Emergents claim they
want “community” but with community come corporate standards… maybe community
isn’t what we want after all.
But isn’t Question 10 at the heart of this debate? It bothers me that so many
emergents now swear and use profanity (see comment #2's link) when the Bible
plainly speaks to this. I’ll grant that drinking and smoking may be comparable
to gluttony and dessert (after all, isn’t heart disease the #1 killer in
I thought Kara’s comment comparing the sins of the past to the sins of the
present was VERY insightful. (In my opinion) it would be better to be guilty of
listening to secular music, playing basketball on Sunday or having a tattoo
(not that I consider any of these sinful) than being guilty of racism,
chauvinism, bitterness or anger…
Nonetheless, a lot of the comments above frighten me! The Bible has got to be
our ethical standard… and no matter how much we want to be “loved” by God… he still draws boundaries. He compares sin to adultery...
and while the "Old Holiness Movement" seemingly saw sin
"everywhere in everything" with little or no Biblical reason; the
Post-modern generation seems to see "no sin anywhere" (although
again, I appreciate Kara's insight here)... there's gotta
be a balance somewhere.
Thinking in Ohio said...
I
think Ken Shenck, just struck that balance, while I
was posting my previous comment... and I couldn't agree more... somewhat
similar experiences myself.
We also need to be patient with new believers... especially in an new age where
so many have not been raised in the christian way.
Jesus came with truth and grace... but it seems grace came first.
Adam Rollefson said...
Hey
Coach,
I hope you're doing well. Things here in
Anyway, I stumbled across your website and thought your Legalism Scale was
fantastic! I grew up Baptist and I can personally testify to the massive
problem most conservative Baptist churches have with extreme legalism.
While my home church in
While I am still doctrinally a Baptist, I cannot in good conscience call myself
one because of the major problem most Baptist churches have with extreme
legalism. While I respect Baptists' focus on doctrinal purity and "holding
the line" against liberalism, most of them have sadly fallen to the
opposite extreme, legalism. As for me, I consider myself as a
Baptist/non-denominationalist in the mold of Billy Graham, Bill Hybels, and Rick Warren and I currently see myself around
level 2 on the scale.
Take care and God bless!
-Adam
Proverbs 3:5-6
Soli Dei Gloria!
One
last thing and it is the most important of all.....
It says, not withstanding they rebelled against the commandment of the Lord
(children not wanting to enter the land)
"Save Caleb....to him will I give the land that he hath troddeen upon and to his children because he hath wholly
followed the Lord"
Maybe that is why folks don't want your versions of holiness nor ever
will....it is a farce.
All you have to do to enter the land is to do what God commands, period.
That is why there is not holiness in the holiness church! When you do what God
commands instead of putting together some stupid group of people to write some
stupid manifesto, your children will enter the land of rest -- you won't. Until
then, you make a very poor smoke stack!
By
the way, did it ever dawn on you folks of the older generation that the reason
there is no "rest" today is because of your rebellion in the 60's and
because of that, God may not be able to move for the remainder of the younger
generations who now yearn for him?
Did that ever cross any of your minds? And, you can talk about entering a rest,
seeing God move, holiness, etc but it just ain't gonna happen. Is that not possible?
Joel said...
A
couple of more points: (I'll try not to be so long winded this time).
In response to Ken Schenck, I DO totally agree that it would be far better to
have inner love, joy, peace, and other fruits of the Spirit then just strict
Sunday observance, etc.
The question for me however, is not what is better but what is best.
It kinda like church atttendance. There are lots of non-church-going people who
are nicer than regular church attenders, but to me
that misses the point.
Best, is to have someone going to church who is actively working on spiritual
graces of kindness, etc. Same with inner vs. outer holiness.
Inner is where it starts and the most important, but I'll take both.
Secondly, I perhaps could be labelled as choosing the
path of schism, but I simply feel that I have chosen the path of original
Methodism. Yes there have been schisms, but I do not want to ever have a harsh
or bitter spirit.
Remember, if there would never be any schisms, we would all still be with the
Roman Catholic Church.
Jon Earls said...
Amen
Joel! I also don't want to be guilty of having a critical spirit - towards
those on either side of the debate.
I do believe that God calls us to holiness - of heart and life. I don't want to
have rules without relationship, at the same time I do believe that God has
given us certain "standards" as well as some guiding principles in
His Word for us to live by.
This belief was part of the message of historic Methodism and at one time the
belief of the Wesleyan, Free Methodist, Nazarene, Salvation Army, etc. Those
of Methodist/Wesleyan background, read John Wesley's
sermon 88 on dress - you may find this intresting.
Find it here: http://gbgm-umc.org/UMHISTORY/Wesley/sermons/
Today, me and my church still believe this way not becase
we're "down on woman" or "bitter judgmental ugly people"
but because we want to live according to God's standards.
Sure, there has always been those who pretended to be
the real thing by putting on the right look or "standards" on the
outside while masking the carnal spirit on the inside. However, this does not
mean that we should "throw the baby out with the bath water." There
has also been some who have went overboard and claimed some things were
Biblical when they were not. Whenever there is the real thing there will be
counterfeit. As for me I want to be whole heartdly
devoted to serving God and living according to His Word.
I
love it....I have chosen the path or original methodistism....well
what about the original path of God!
I forgot, that is a non-essential!
daniel said...
Dear
virulent anonymous poster,
Look, if you're not adult enough to put a name with your insulting,
denigrating, and hate-filled posts -- they deserve to be deleted. Every post
I've seen from you is highly critical of everyone posting. Maybe you should
stop trying to have a pissing contest with your fellow christians.
Instead, try to exact change through the Love and Power of an Almighty God.
Hate does not breed Love. Love does. It's a simple lesson.
If you want a plant to grow in a certain direction, you carefully and lovingly
prune it providing it with Love, Attention, Sunlight and Water. The same goes
for the church. If you feel God calling you to grow the church in a certain
direction, you don't poison it with insults and divisiveness; instead, you
should give it Love, Tenderness, Attention, and thoughtful and kind words of
CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
Nothing is gained by spouting Anonymous Flames.
This post has been removed by the blog
administrator.
Keith.Drury wraps
up with...
Whew! A pastor preaching an “ordinary sermon” never
can guess what will make a stink! What
deep feelings on this subject! Lots of
great insights from you this week—also some deep feelings, from what I recall
there have seldom been more “feelings words” in responses (except perhaps on
political issues). A few wrap up quotes from my perspective:
1. I described what I have seen since 1950
in this scale—I saw many in the holiness movement move from level sex to level
two in my lifetime, with many of their children moving on to [most of] level
one.
2. I personally have moved in my lifetime
too. I was raised in a level 5/4 church
and my family was a level 4/3.
3. In college I moved to level 3 then back
to 3/2/1 when I had children.
4. During this time many in my denomination
moved from level 5/4 to level 3/2/1 with many of my mega-church pastor friends
in 2/1.
5. I think there is more “biblical support”
for some of the things in level 4/5/6 than for some of the things in 3/2/1—so I
do not think my church has been honest when it says it roots its standards in
the Bible—we should say “We root our standards in the Bible, but we do not take
all the Bible’s standards as our standards.”
6. I think it is completely legitimate for
the Christians (and the church) to forbid things the Bible never mentions. If there were only one church in the world I
wouldn’t—but joining my congregation is not the only church to join—remember my
denomination was founded by opposing slavery as sin—nothing condemned
explicitly in the Bible.
7. I do believe people “freeze in”: at some
point—usually about age 35, then they move a bit sometimes for their kids—but
often do not move themselves too far after this.
8. I also agree that it is hard for older
folk who have moved several levels to tell their kids to stop moving and stay
where they are. It is possible, but
hard.
9. I believe the church has not only a
right but an obligation to speak to its members on these things. I prefer it when the church admonishes rather
than requires things though—in the sense of “If you attend here you’ll be
hearing us warning you regularly about X Y and Z.”.
10. I fully agree that many of these
“standards” are the secret to “group identity” and thus serve other purposes
besides guarding against sin or evil.
For instance when the “Conservative Holiness movement” budges on
forbidding their women to get their hair “bobbed” it is curtains for them—same
for several other “outward signs” in that community. Can you be an Amish and drive a John Deere tractor
and buy a Buick—well, technically you could be Amish at heart, but these
“outward things” are what define the Amish more than their doctrine. Lifestyle is no laughing matter, so I am
sympathetic to the CHM when they “hold the standards” for that may be the only
way for them to “hold the fort!”
I think “worldliness” was a legitimate concern for the old holiness people—that often a “thing” in itself was not sin but it denoted a certain love for the world and thus could set a dangerous direction.
Thanks
for a “lively” discussion—and especially thank you to the conservatives who
posted this week (the level-headed irenic ones I mean) --Keith