Fundamentalism, Culture and Lost Opportunity
I woke up this morning thinking, “Not enough people are mad at me.” Hence, this post.
Actually, my sincere hope is to encourage, not more rage but more reflection on all sides of the fundamentalism-and-culture issue. I’m going to argue that the two perspectives that are most passionate and opposite on this question are both wasting an important opportunity. First, some framing.
Fundamentalism and cultural conservatism
The central question is basically this: how should Christians evaluate heavily culture-entwined matters such as music styles (chiefly in worship), entertainment, clothing, etc.? To nuance the question a little more: how should churches, ministries, and individuals connected with fundamentalism and its heritage view these cultural issues?
Two nearly-opposite sets of answers to this question have become prominent among leaders and ministries of fundamentalist lineage. My guess is that most people are really somewhere between these two attitudes, mixing points from each. But the two near-opposite views seem to have the most passionate and articulate advocates.
At one end of the question, we have the Kevin Bauder, Scott Aniol, David DeBruyn, et. al. axis. At the other end, representatives are more scattered (and more numerous), but recent high-visibility proponents include Matt Olson of Northland International University and pastor Bob Bixby.
At the risk of catastrophic failure in the first 300 words, I’ll attempt to fairly summarize the differences in these two perspectives at least well enough to talk about them clearly. Because we’ve already got more than enough overstatement in the mix(!), I’ll consciously aim to err on the side of understatement.
Cultural conservatism
Let’s call the Bauder-Aniol point of view “cultural conservatism,” and simplify it as the idea that everything cultural is full of meaning and that the meaning is heavily influenced by where we are in history as a society—both in the history of ideas and in the history of cultural changes associated with those ideas. In short, nothing cultural is neutral, everything must be scrutinized for fitness for use by Christians, and that scrutnity should be biased in favor of the not-recent past. To say it another way, we ought to look at cultural change with a regard for the past that increases (to a point) as we look further back. I think I can fairly say that this view sees changes in culture in the West as being mostly negative since the middle ages.
The cultural conservatives are often about as unimpressed with 19th century “Second Great Awakening” music as they are with most of today’s “CCM.” It’s a lonely place to be, because it means most of what’s being created now is junk and much of what we (and our grandparents) grew up singing in church is junk, too.
Full disclosure: I’m mostly in the Bauder-Aniol-DeBruyn bailiwick. Though I would often argue the case differently (sometimes very differently), I consider myself a cultural conservative.
Cultural anti-conservatism
The perspective I’ve identified here with Olson and Bixby has many, many representatives. And I’m sure that “anti-conservatism” is not what they would choose to call their point of view. I apologize for that. It’s my intention to represent this perspective fairly and accurately—I just don’t yet have a better handle to attach to it.
This view rejects the idea that there is a superior cultural ideal at some point in the history of the West. It associates the cultural reactions of 20th century fundamentalism with legalism and tends to see the “standards” and “rules” of that era (and the surviving present forms) as often arbitrary and ill-conceived, at best, and as a ruse for unethical exercise of power and oppression by fundamentalist leaders, at worst.
In this view, the meaning of musical styles (and clothing styles, forms of entertainment, etc.) either never amounts to much to begin with or very quickly fades into irrelevance. Since the Christian faith and the church cross millennia and know no ethnic boundaries, the range of acceptable cultural forms for Christian worship is very broad and continually changing. Further—and this is an important point—the time has come to put many (most?) of the cultural stands of movement fundamentalism in the rear view mirror (post haste!).
Why the debate is going nowhere
Just looking at the ideas at stake, it should be pretty clear why the culture debate is not a trivial one. If everything cultural is packed with meaning—and not necessarily meaning we are conscious of—and if that meaning matters to God, we have much sober thinking to do about every bit of the culture we accept and use.
If, on the other hand, cultural meaning dissipates quickly into irrelevance (or doesn’t exist in the first place) and if tradition-favoring fundamentalists merely use these matters to impose their personal preferences on people, it’s possible that the “rules” not only dishonor the God we claim but that these traditions also cripple the joyful, heartfelt and free expressions of worship God wants from His people.
These are not abstract questions that should only interest academics or “overly contentious people.”
And that means all who love the Bible and want to live for the glory of God in these chaotic times are facing in important opportunity. More in line with the scope of this essay, we who are of fundamentalist heritage have an important opportunity.
But as far as I can tell, both sides are mostly botching it. There is almost no real engagement.
On one hand, Olson (and many others—let’s be fair) is saying rules and do’s and dont’s have no relationship to spirituality or sanctification and that to believe they do is legalism. And Bixby (and, again, he’s hardly alone) is saying that the cultural conservatives are basically arrogant, condescending snobs who are heaping guilt and shame on the “the average fundamentalist,” who, by the way, is a mindless, conforming robot.
On the other hand, the case for cultural conservatism has often included a “You’re too ignorant to understand; take my word for it” subtext. Though I can’t supply examples, I’m pretty sure I haven’t imagined that (I say this as one who is very sympathetic with their position). Proponents of cultural conservativism have also shown a tendency to be brittle in response to passionate opposition.
So in different ways (by insult or by non-engagement), both sides have shown a tendency to preach only to their own choirs (or praise bands, as the case may be).
The passion is good
Let’s be clear, though: these matters are too important to consider in a completely passionless way. We’re not debating infra- vs. super-lapsarianism. (Okay, that debate’s been pretty passionate too—aren’t they all?!) So I’m not faulting either side for getting hot and bothered at times. There would be something really twisted about examining these ideas with yawns and drooping eyelids.
But that means both sides of the question should expect that the other will, at times, commit the errors that always attend passionate disagreement. We humans just can’t be worked up as we should without also being worked up in ways we shouldn’t and lapsing into overstatement, bile-dumping, walking off in a huff, etc. It isn’t good, but it is normal. Rather than judge one another by unrealistic standards, we should quickly recognize how prone we all are to “gettin’ ugly,” and open the forbearance valve wide and hard.
At the same time, realizing how sensitive and close-to-heart these matters are (and how much historical baggage is attached), we should accept the need for extraordinary self-restraint (vs. extraordinary effort to restrain the other guy—i.e., shut him up). The debate calls for understanding and persuasion, not reaction and coercion.
For my part, I’m fully prepared to grant that just about everybody on both sides (and the points between) of the “cultural fundamentalism” question is keenly interested in doing what honors God and best serves His people.
The opportunity
So what is this opportunity we’re wasting? For the sake of brevity, perhaps it’s best to put it in terms of what could happen if enough believers put their minds and hearts to it.
I already hear snickers at my naïve idealism. But this isn’t really “idealism.” Idealism confuses what ought to be with what really is. Pursuing what truly could eventually be is something else.
What could eventually be—an articulate group of leaders on each side of the question could:
- separate the debate from the meta-debate
- identify the real the points of agreement and disagreement
- have the real debate
These points require more expansion than this post permits. A few clarifying observations, though: on both sides of the culture question (and several of the positions between), argument has occurred in a manner that obscures rather than clarifies the real points of disagreement. They have poured all sorts of meta-debate into the mix, making what’s really at issue nearly impossible to identify or engage.
It’s tragic. These matters are so important. It’s also tragic because a healthy debate exposes and highlights real differences so that those trying to make a wise, godly decision are better informed. We need a healthy debate about culture and meaning.
I hope to give more attention to meta-debate and points of agreement in a future post.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 170 views
This article is pertinent to the discussion.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Greg Long]Thank you for the links, because on the first one you provided under “a definition of legalism” #3 is “attempting to be sanctified by one’s own works.” And on the third link you provided, #2. B. is “the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.”
So, as I said, it can apply to both salvation and sanctification.
Its almost always exclusively thought of in terms of salvation not sanctification. When you say legalism that is defined as works based merit of something or other even on the case of using it as sanctification (which it never was until modern culture debates) it is a tall accusation that should never be thrown around lightly. It really wouldn’t be much different from someone of my view calling someone who is of the contemporary stripe a liberal. Calling someone a liberal by definition is questioning their salvation and so is calling someone a legalist. According to James we see someone’s salvation based on the visual outworking of one’s sanctification. Using of either term is questioning whether the other truly loves the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Saying one is a legalist or a liberal by definition is stating the need to ecclesiastically separate from those individuals such as the reformers did when they couldn’t change the Catholic church and such as the original Fundamentalists did when individuals began to adopt liberal doctrines. That has been the form of those terms in theology for a very long time. Just because Post-Modernism allows one to take words and change their meaning to whatever one wants does not make that acceptable. Words mean things, and they mean them for a reason.
I agree… As a young Baptist Fundamentalist who really hasn’t had much influencing me outside of the circles surround Maranatha, FBBC, and Central; I am completely tired of hearing bad stuff about my movement that begins and ends with Bob Jones or BFF or IBFNA or anything like it. Because honestly that does not speak to any of the leadership from those institutions or those closely affiliated with it. Do I see some of what Bixby and Joel are talking about… yes… I know many many BJU grads and current attendies… and it shows in the way they live their lives…. What frustrates me the most is when we get tied directly to them and when certain people try to disqualify everything Dr. Bauder, Scott Aniol, myself and many others say by tying what I know to be Baptist Fundamentalism to isolationists and traditionalists. It seems that most articles as I mentioned before that I read from those who oppose Dr. Bauder and Scott Aniol do just that, instead actually dealing with the content that they are presenting they just tie us to people we don’t agree with on much at all and saying therefore we shouldn’t listen to them.
I agree with paynen’s last post.
I too am tired of fundamentalism too often dismissing, hyper-judged, and nit-picked to death over and over and over again in a blanket manner. This by people who try to come off as being “with it” and intellectual themselves.
If it isn’t outright wrong and unloving, it for sure is to be intellectually lazy.
I read this from Phil Johnson’s well-known piece against fundamentalism. He is recounting an incident from his Bible College days at a fundamentalist college:
My very first week at Tennessee Temple, they brought in a speaker who
literally doused himself with lighter fluid and set himself ablaze while he
preached on hell. He billed himself as “The Flaming Evangelist.” During the
year I was there, our student chapels featured a nonstop parade of karate
experts, gospel magicians, gospel clowns, young Jack-Hyles wannabes, and
other assorted characters. The low point was one day when Robert Sumner
came and in a 45-minute message attacked every one of the five points of
Calvinism. He was arguing that sinners have it within their own power by a
free-will decision to convert themselves—which, of course, is pure pelagianism;
rank heresy. He would emphasize his weakest points by shouting louder, and
that never failed to elicit a chorus of hearty amens. That kind of thing, sadly,
epitomizes how most of the fundamentalist movement in America has dealt
with the fundamentals of the faith.)
How embarrassing … ! We all must be honest about past mistakes and current aberrations.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[paynen] Its almost always exclusively thought of in terms of salvation not sanctification. When you say legalism that is defined as works based merit of something or other even on the case of using it as sanctification (which it never was until modern culture debates) it is a tall accusation that should never be thrown around lightly. It really wouldn’t be much different from someone of my view calling someone who is of the contemporary stripe a liberal. Calling someone a liberal by definition is questioning their salvation and so is calling someone a legalist. According to James we see someone’s salvation based on the visual outworking of one’s sanctification. Using of either term is questioning whether the other truly loves the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Saying one is a legalist or a liberal by definition is stating the need to ecclesiastically separate from those individuals such as the reformers did when they couldn’t change the Catholic church and such as the original Fundamentalists did when individuals began to adopt liberal doctrines. That has been the form of those terms in theology for a very long time. Just because Post-Modernism allows one to take words and change their meaning to whatever one wants does not make that acceptable. Words mean things, and they mean them for a reason.
No, not really…let’s go back to your link. If I had more time, I’d get into the other tools on my bookshelves as well.
Legalism, in Christian theology, is a usually pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God’s grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption…
…One concept of legalism, the belief that salvation can be earned by obedience to laws, is referred to in various New Testament books, including Galatians. In this case, some Jews who had become Christians believed that in order to obtain salvation, both faith in Christ (as Messiah), and obedience to the Mosiac laws were required, such as the cases of the circumcision controversy and the Incident at Antioch. Generally, however, these cases are referred to as the Judaizer controversy, rather than a legalism controversy, but the two are related.
…Legalism is sometimes confused with obedience. New Testament books such as Romans, speak of grace and obedience together. An example is found in Romans 1:5 (New American Standard Version) speaking of Christ ‘through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for His name’s sake…’ The goal of receiving the grace was to bring about obedience of faith. Here grace, faith and obedience are tied together. Other references are in Acts 5:29, 32; Romans 16:19; 2 Corinthians 7:15; Hebrews 5:9.
Legalism is also confused with discipline, which is often spoken of in a positive light. See 1 Corinthians 9:17; 1 Timothy 4:7; 2 Timothy 1:7 and Hebrews 12:5–11.
Furthermore, by your own definition, I must have my salvation questioned because I am ‘liberal’ on the basis of my musical standards. Want to debate that point? :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
key words “is often confused with”
Apologies, but I can’t completely keep up w/the discussion. Too much going on.
A couple of observations: the legalism factor. Since my interest in the topic at this point is one focused on increasing clarity about what’s agreed and what isn’t (and isolating the meta debate), I’d suggest that where a healthy debate needs to go is to table “legalism” as a term and look at essences… I think there is more agreement on grace and the dynamic of Christian living than there might seem to be, because the definition of “legalism” becomes a distraction.
As a small contribution to that effort, though, let’s notice that Jesus never defined legalism. He pointed out numerous characteristics of the Pharisees. He did not say this characteristic or that one is legalism. I’ve argued elsewhere—using biblical evidence—that the Pharisee’s main problem was unbelief. They were lost and rebellios as well as greedy and minipulative. It doesn’t work to reason like this:
* The pharisees were legalists
* The pharisees had quality A (somewhat arbitrarily selected)
* Therefore quality A is legalism
On “dishonesty” and the conservatism of Garlock vs. the conservatism of Aniol, et. al.
- First, it’s never helpful to assume that when a person/group seems to be claiming more than the evidence warrants, they must be “dishonest.” This is, frankly, judgmental… which is ironic. Dishonesty comes into play when you knowingly attempt to deceive.
- Second, the differences and similarities between the older (and still more typical, I think) traditionalism on matters of culture vs. the perspective of the group I called cultural conservatives in the essay— these ought to be closely examined. Doing that reveals far more similarity than difference when it comes to current cultural trends. But a greater difference when looking at cultural trends two centuries ago, etc.
So the differences are mainly those of attention to history—in particular culture and meaning in historical context. The old traditionalism didn’t really notice that it was often pitting the cultural trendiness of an old era against the cultural trendines of the current one and that the old trendiness had its problems, too.
But the core concept that culture is full of meaning and Christians must be counter cultural, especially in worship… Garlock and co. embraced this as fully as the CCs do. They just weren’t that interested in historical analysis.
There may be other substantive differences, but I’m not aware of any off hand. It would be interesting to hear from the CCs on this point (but I think right now they are not inclined to participate/engage)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]On “dishonesty” and the conservatism of Garlock vs. the conservatism of Aniol, et. al.
- First, it’s never helpful to assume that when a person/group seems to be claiming more than the evidence warrants, they must be “dishonest.” This is, frankly, judgmental… which is ironic. Dishonesty comes into play when you knowingly attempt to deceive.
- Second, the differences and similarities between the older (and still more typical, I think) traditionalism on matters of culture vs. the perspective of the group I called cultural conservatives in the essay— these ought to be closely examined. Doing that reveals far more similarity than difference when it comes to current cultural trends. But a greater difference when looking at cultural trends two centuries ago, etc.
So the differences are mainly those of attention to history—in particular culture and meaning in historical context. The old traditionalism didn’t really notice that it was often pitting the cultural trendiness of an old era against the cultural trendines of the current one and that the old trendiness had its problems, too.
But the core concept that culture is full of meaning and Christians must be counter cultural, especially in worship… Garlock and co. embraced this as fully as the CCs do. They just weren’t that interested in historical analysis.
There may be other substantive differences, but I’m not aware of any off hand. It would be interesting to hear from the CCs on this point (but I think right now they are not inclined to participate/engage)
I say it’s dishonest, Aaron, because I respect their intelligence. And if they are not deliberately ignoring the obvious difference then I have thought they are far more intelligent then they are. It’s not judgmental to say something is immoral or dishonest or sin. I could be wrong. I often am wrong. But I am weary of this kind of gamesmanship with teaching that is clearly about keeping people in the fold and not helping them to think biblically. They are changing the “rules of separation” to be about culture and not associations. Maybe this is better. That’s up for grabs. I’m actually inclined to think it is a better trend. But it is not laying all your cards out on the table and real traditionalist IFB know exactly what I am referring to and would agree with me. But I think it’s playing games with the average person in the pew to share conferences with people who SAY that separation should be practiced against those who are wrongly affiliated (i.e. in the SBC) and yet they clearly join in cooperative fellowship with people who are in the SBC because they agree on matters of music. They are re-writing the rules of separation that they believe everybody ought to live by while capitalizing on the emotional energy of traditionalists who live and feel by the old rules in controversies such as the one that is surrounding NIU. And that is dishonest.
Bob,
Is it dishonest to not always say everything one thinks? If a teacher whose emphasis is “biblical conservatism” (for lack of better) comes alongside someone who thinks they are conservative, someone who has more or less the same practice but does so for parochial reasons rather than for solid philosophical reasons, and tries to show them a better way without expressly saying, “you know you and I don’t really believe the same things at all,” is that dishonest? Is there such a thing as an acceptable pragmatism? You seem to indicate there is with your “speaking the less than best native tongue to win some” above.
Paynen - OK, so strike that last little bit of the quote that I referenced. Can you deal with the rest of what I wrote now? This practice of death by a thousand minnows (find one thing, point out the error, and then ignore the rest of the point) thing is getting very old, and I know that you aren’t being deliberately antagonistic. It just is the typical response to being confronted with a new or different idea, and it’s obnoxious.
Aaron made two points I want to specifically interact with, and I’m hoping to write an article myself along these lines soon.
This view rejects the idea that there is a superior cultural ideal at some point in the history of the West. It associates the cultural reactions of 20th century fundamentalism with legalism and tends to see the “standards” and “rules” of that era (and the surviving present forms) as often arbitrary and ill-conceived, at best, and [can lead to…] a ruse for unethical exercise of power and oppression by fundamentalist leaders, at worst.
In this view, the meaning of musical styles (and clothing styles, forms of entertainment, etc.) either never amounts to much to begin with or very quickly fades into irrelevance. Since the Christian faith and the church cross millennia and know no ethnic boundaries, the range of acceptable cultural forms for Christian worship is very broad and continually changing.
First - the part in italics is a suggested correction to what Aaron wrote, and it changes his presentation of my argument fairly substantially, so I felt like I should object. I do not think that those on the ‘conservative side’ (since that’s what they’ve asked me to call them) seek to use their power unethically or oppress people because they’re looking for control. I think they’re deadly serious about separation and worship (which is good!), but the way they go about teaching on this leads towards a tendency for that behavior in 99.9999% of these cases. Or that that kind of teaching is adopted by unregenerates who clearly seek to exploit power under the guise of ‘Christianity’ (I’m thinking specifically of Jack Hyles and no others).
Second - One of my original contentions with Scott (and those like him) in particular is the bolded portion that Aaron wrote…that there is some specific form of unregenerate culture that is the ‘ideal we should all aspire to’ (other than the unrealized and physical Kingdom of Christ).
Here are my underlying disagreements with Scott as represented in Aaron’s post. I:
- do not agree with this idea of an ideal culture in the past
- do not agree that there is sufficient evidence to argue for the superiority of any unregenerate culture
- do not agree that there is any Biblical room to argue for such a thing
- do not believe that this is a Biblical concept even if there is such evidence in the Bible
I also do see the reactions of Fundamentalists as ‘arbitrary’ and ‘ill-conceived’ in this specific matter, and Aaron did a good job in portraying the other results (the thing about dress standards, entertainment, etc.).
I would agree with Bob Bixby (I think he’d agree with this) that to represent an argument for musical standards on these grounds is dishonest, and it’s why I called Scott on it when he explicitly demeaned “Sola Scriptura” a few days ago. Since Scott comes from a Reformed and Calvinistic background - and especially as someone who teaches at a major theological seminary - his treatment of that concept in his last sentence and link to the corresponding article was, frankly, appalling. He knows better than this, and we’d fail him at an ordination council if he applied his argument in that article to doctrine. It is at best, ungracious and condescending. But because he’s talking about just ‘musical standards’, he gets a pass? Huh?
Brothers, such things ought not to be.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Now dealing with your view on culture, I don’t think anyone can truly deny that there is a stark moral difference between certain cultures. It is obvious to any observer that a culture with a Christian disposition is going to be in a morally better place the a culture with a pagan disposition and that means that the out workings of that culture are going to be influenced by the cultural dispositions. As culture is only the melding of the conglomerate of the people’s worldviews. Regardless of your views on the usability of certain cultures the above statements are unarguably true, unless you have a post-modern view of morality.
Bob,
Scott and I are in agreement theologically and on most worship/music issues. His personal character, values, integrity, doctrine, and family life are outstanding. Scott’s family has grown up in our church for over 25 years. His mother has been our elementary principal for many years as well. Scott, as your know, has been heavily involved in IFB churches, schools, colleges his entire life. Several years ago he pursued his Ph.D. at Southwestern in the only seminary to my knowledge that offers that level of training in the field of music, aesthetics, and worship. While there he was asked by Paige Patterson to teach some grad classes while working his way through school. He finished his program just a few days ago and now he is going on full-time faculty as a professor. I had him teach one workshop at my conference while he was pursuing his Ph.D. as a part time grad teacher. I was supporting him financially, but I have ceased that support as of several months ago. I wish that one of our churches or schools could have taken him on fulltime. However, those opportunities did not come to fruition. I am no fan of the SBC; however, the substance of Scott’s doctrine, lifestyle, worship practices, have remained extremely conservative. I just received his Ph.D. dissertation and am looking forward to reading it.
Pastor Mike Harding
I’ve been out all day, but I had some time to type up some thoughts on sanctification and rules as I waited in lines, etc. So here you go:
Normal 0 false false false RU X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Обычная таблица”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:”“; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
[Aaron Blumer] So one direction a healthy debate would need to go is to try to arrive at clarity on just what this [grace/sanctification/seeming-lack-of-rules] view really is.
I like your bullet-point style b/c it isolates ideas to talk about, so I will try to use that style here, too.
1. Defining “sanctification.” Let’s try out a simple, working definition of sanctification—becoming more like Christ. (Or, our expressing Christ through the Spirit in us.)
2. Rules have value in a few ways:
a. They can restrain fleshly or immature Christians. You might argue that this is sanctifying (expressing Christ), but I don’t think it is. We might need to talk more about this.
b. They can aid mature Christians in moments of temptation who have a weakness in a certain area. The rule (probably a personal rule) helps them not to sin until they reach a deeper level of Christlikeness and can be then ruled by a more perfect love, rather than just a rule.
c. Obeying certain rules/biblical commands help us maintain a reputation before men, saved or unsaved. Not murdering, not stealing, being faithful to one’s spouse, etc. These are particularly important for those in ministry/leadership, though ideally, all professing Christians would live up to this example-lifestyle.
3. Rules are dangerous:
a. When we think that we are more pleasing to God because we observe certain rules. Our obedience itself does not inherently make us pleasing to God or please God—why:
i. Only Christ’s obedience meets God’s standards; Christ’s obedience on our behalf is the only thing we have to glory in.
ii. An obedience is only “good” when it is, by the Spirit’s work, united with (or done in) humble faith in Christ’s righteousness applied and the believer’s need to follow His example in this life. God graciously accepts these acts of faith, though not necessarily the obedience itself.
b. When our humility is corrupted from judging others’ and our own standing before God based on rule observance. When we think (or it is implied by leadership) that we are more pleasing to God and more righteous because we observe certain rules that others believers do not. By this we break the first and main rule—to love God and others. To worship only God—because this becomes a form of self worship or rule worship.
c. When we confuse obeying rules with the fruit of the Spirit, then think we are more spiritually mature than we really are.
i. Obeying a rule can be an expression of the Spirit in us, but it is not inherently so. We can focus on rule-adherence-as-righteousness, not understanding that rules do not inherently cultivate godliness in us, only the Spirit does this.
ii. This explains the hurtfulness of institutions and churches and individuals who can be very diligent to obey rules, even great ones, even Biblical ones, but in relational temptation, they then behave sinfully—anger, betrayal, unforgiveness, etc.
d. When we confuse a rule obeyed by conscience with God’s actual command.
4. These things are taught to us by the Spirit, not only our reason, though that does play a part.
[paynen] I was saying calling a someone a theological liberal for their music standards is equivalent to calling someone a legalist for holding to the importance of a conservative philosophy of culture. Now dealing with your view on culture, I don’t think anyone can truly deny that there is a stark moral difference between certain cultures. It is obvious to any observer that a culture with a Christian disposition is going to be in a morally better place the a culture with a pagan disposition and that means that the out workings of that culture are going to be influenced by the cultural dispositions. As culture is only the melding of the conglomerate of the people’s worldviews. Regardless of your views on the usability of certain cultures the above statements are unarguably true, unless you have a post-modern view of morality.
So if I started preaching that Christians can only use the 1599 Geneva Bible, must dress like the Puritans, and adopt the language of that culture, you would not call me a legalist for adapting their specific culture because I’m a believer? Really?
;)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion