Free to Live

I get most of what he’s saying and mostly agree, but…

“rule keeping as a means”

We need to get past this. Rule keeping is​ a means of spirituality.

Here’s my case again in a nutshell:

• Applying Scripture to your life, IOW, living by the book, is a means of spirituality (it might even be a definition)
• Applying Scripture requires that you make some rules.
• Ergo, rule keeping is a means of spirituality.

In the last thread on this I suggested a few random examples. Take gambling. There is no Bible verse that says “don’t gamble.” There are principles that argue strongly that gambling is poor stewardship, lazy, etc.

So how do I live those principles? I make a decision not to gamble. This generalization “I will not gamble” is a rule.

Now, if I’m also responsible for the conduct of other people, applying Scripture is going to require that I make some​ rules for them, too (which ones and how to make them, etc. is a separate topic). Hence, “I and my family will not participate in gambling.”

So how is this rule not a “means” of “spirituality” (which I’m taking to mean here “godly living”)?

(If that one doesn’t work for you, try this: “I will report accurate numbers on my tax returns” as an application of principles like obedience to the powers that be, honesty, and avoiding theft.)

To clarify, I’m not saying:

• All rules are means of spirituality
• Rule-keeping by itself is a means of spirituality
• Rule-keeping is a substitute for genuine love and faith

The problem we’ve seen a fair amount of in fundamentalism is variations on the three points above. But the solution is not to dismiss the value of disciplined living as a means of spirituality.

I think most fundamentalists in our classic fundamentalist churches, like to say the things that you are saying, Aaron, but in reality that is not what is practiced. It is clearly prevalent within fundamentalism that if you don’t follow certain perceived rules, that while you won’t be called a sinner, you will be slowly distanced by other groups in the church. If the pastors wife came into church with pants, there would be more talk than if the church joined the SBC. There are all of these rules that either written or unwritten govern the social stratification within fundamentalist churches. Whether you realize them or not they are there. I left this movement as it is now a little while ago and have started attending a church outside of these fundamentalist circles that I have grown up in and been in for more than 40 years. What a breath of fresh air having all of these type of “social” rules done away with. We have people who wear short and families where woman where head covering. We had a member, who drives a Harley to church, has jeans and t-shirt on and long hair and he stood up to read scripture during our congregational reading. He read the passage, and gave a short 3 sentence recap. I have never heard a passage read so well and a recap done so well as I heard from this man. I can tell you that he would have never made it from the back row of many fundamentalist churches out there because of the “rules” that he would have failed to keep. While he would not have received open armed fellowship in most of our churches, the sad part is that he will have to wait for that fellowship when he gets to heaven. We won’t fellowship with people here in our churches, but what does that look like in heaven. I have a feeling that even in heaven the fundamentalist will be carving out some kind of niche there to segment themselves out. Because I cannot believe some of the vitrol talk to people like lets say a Mark Dever, but we expect to fellowship with him in heaven.

So while fundamentalist like to pick out the big ticket items like gambling, how about the clothes you wear, the music you listen to, the songs we sing, who so and so talks to…… Those are the items that are issues and are seriously preventing discipleship opportunities in church.

Aaron’s recommendation will work, and is actually a good and godly procedure as long as it remains a personal decision. (Or, as he says, the head of a family deciding for his family, etc.)

It is making a decision on a non-essential (something not specified in the Bible) based upon a desire to please the Lord. It is exercising Christian Liberty by deciding not to practice a certain activity for Christ-honoring reasons. It is like Paul deciding not to eat meat offered to idols in order not to harm a weaker brother.

The “rules-making” becomes a problem when Aaron decides that his personal rule should be every Christian’s rule. I don’t think Aaron would do that. However, as we know, many others have and still do. That’s the problem, and that is a form of legalism.

My wife and I have made the same journey that David has made and have come to the conclusion, like Greg, that a lot of these rules are personal in nature. I’m comfortable going to church without a tie, but I wore one Sunday. (I still can’t bring myself to wear jeans.) I’ve always been “fussy” about my music but I’ve been introduced to hymns that warm my soul and often bring tears of joy. (And I haven’t missed “Heaven came Down and Glory Filled My Soul.) I’m enjoying the fellowship of a congregation that, while not of my generation or background, loves Christ and one another and desire to be a visible witness for the Gospel.

Meanwhile, some of my Christian brethren whom I love and care for deeply, have distanced themselves from me because I quoted the words from “In Christ Alone” when I preached at their church (“He listens to bad music”), because I attend a church that uses the ESV, because I attended T4G, because I really like 9 Marks (Dever is a Southern Baptist!), and/or because I have a secular job that sometimes requires me to work on Sunday.

I’m not talking about institutional rules for the Bible college where students choose to attend … a handbook is printed (and hopefully available prior to enrollment)!

And only now about sanctification … not justification

My rules for me:

• How I chose to dress … maybe it’s my wife will wear a dress and not slacks or, my kids shorts will be to the knee, or I will wear a tie to church
• How I eat / drink (basically covered in Romans 14). Drinking in moderation versus total abstinence
• How I choose to give: grace giving (maybe more than a tithe … perhaps less. Between me and my Lord)
• How I choose to be entertained: whether I go to the movies, amusement parks, ball-games, etc
• My rules for me, as long as I understand that I am not saved by these (justification) and are helpful but do not in themselves sanctify me! My rules for me are helpful! And probably most S/I readers have them! I do!

My rules for you:

• Your life is your life and it is none of my business. Romans 14:4, “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.” We are not to be “busybodies” (various verses)
• As a teacher, I will teach the whole council of God. God the Spirit will apply it as learners yield to Him
• To another husband: You be the head of your household and decide for yourself and your family, the things I’ve decided for myself!
• To someone else’s child: You’ve got a Dad (or at least a parent) … obey that one
• To someone else’s wife: She’s got a husband. How he directs her is not my business
• My rules for me will not sanctify someone else! The truth obeyed will sanctify another
• And so my task as a teacher is to teach the Word of God. John 17:17, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”
• My role as a believer aside from teaching is to be an example in my conduct and deportment
• For my to take my rules for me and make them my rules for you is legalism (aside from the caveats mentioned at the top of this post!)
  • Whether Bill wears a tie to church? I don’t care … not my business. Same with a suit / jeans / etc
  • Whether Bill tithes or gives 2% … I don’t care (and I don’t need to know!)
  • Whether Bill’s daughters wear bikinis to the beach … I need to be careful where I gaze but they are his kids!
  • Whether Bill enjoys a beer with a hamburger … it’s his business.

[Aaron Blumer] In the last thread on this I suggested a few random examples. Take gambling. There is no Bible verse that says “don’t gamble.” There are principles that argue strongly that gambling is poor stewardship, lazy, etc.

So how do I live those principles? I make a decision not to gamble. This generalization “I will not gamble” is a rule.

[/Quote]

Aaron, I would say the rule should be that, “I will be a good steward of my money”. The application for you is that you will not gamble. The fact that other people gamble does not mean that they are not good stewards of their money. It could be entertainment for them. No different than I may think that you taking your child out for a dinner is a total waste of money as you can accomplish the same thing at home and save some money.

[Quote]

(If that one doesn’t work for you, try this: “I will report accurate numbers on my tax returns” as an application of principles like obedience to the powers that be, honesty, and avoiding theft.)

To clarify, I’m not saying:

[/Quote]

This is a little different since reporting accurate numbers to a government agency is at least two direct sins (not an issue of application). One is “Thou shalt not lie”, and the other is “give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s”. Maybe others here. Since the direct activity, that you state above, can only result in direct sin immediately, is different than gambling, since that may not result in sin right away. Gambling is very broad and may not result in being a poor steward directly.

[Quote]

The problem we’ve seen a fair amount of in fundamentalism is variations on the three points above. But the solution is not to dismiss the value of disciplined living as a means of spirituality.

I don’t think anyone is saying we need to dismiss personal rules in our lives. What we see in fundamentalism is that if you don’t follow the “herd rules” it is fairly tantamount to sin. What do I mean by that? Well take for example, this situation. Which is looked worse upon in a fundamentalist church? A pastor who is 50 lbs overweight (a clear indication of gluttony), or the pastors wife who wears pants to Sunday morning worship? The pastor who is overweight gets an arm around them and the issue is brushed off with the statement, “We XXXXXX just love to eat”, replace XXXX with Baptist, Fundamentalists…., while everyone really starts whispering about the pastor’s wife, or maybe even accusations are flung that the pastors wife is immodest and the pastor no longer has his house under control. Then add on top of the fact that (and I have seen this), another church will start distancing themselves or even start breaking fellowship with this church because the wife is now wearing pants.

[dgszweda]

Well take for example, this situation. Which is looked worse upon in a fundamentalist church? A pastor who is 50 lbs overweight (a clear indication of gluttony)…

This is moronic on its face. Overweight (by what Biblical measure, by the way) does not equal gluttony. Never has; never will. Straw man of all straw men.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

[Lee]

This is moronic on its face. Overweight (by what Biblical measure, by the way) does not equal gluttony. Never has; never will. Straw man of all straw men.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Obviously “overweight” can mean a lot of things, but eating to point where one’s weight over “normal” is affecting health could certainly be seen as inordinate lust (you don’t want to call it gluttony), and certainly just as unwise as losing a little money at the track.

Clearly just about any example could be seen as a straw man when painted in a certain way, or when taken to a certain extreme. That does not change the fact that it’s clear that in fundamental circles certain destructive behaviors have been overlooked while others are called sin. We should let scripture be our guide, not tradition.

[Lee]

[dgszweda]

Well take for example, this situation. Which is looked worse upon in a fundamentalist church? A pastor who is 50 lbs overweight (a clear indication of gluttony)…

This is moronic on its face. Overweight (by what Biblical measure, by the way) does not equal gluttony. Never has; never will. Straw man of all straw men.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Pretty strong words. But the globally recognized standard is having a BMI >25. (without regards for extraneous circumstances like pregnancy and such). Not only does it indicate overweight, but it is a key indicator for an increase in health problems due to weight. It essentially means that you body is storing extra calories to the point that it is increasing your health problems. In order to get to this point, you need to regularly take in calories well beyond your means. Gluttony is defined as excess eating or drinking to the point of overindulgence.

I struggle with weight but have had it under control for many years. My metabolism is slow, but I have found that I need to really control my intake. With that said if you have a BMI > 25, you had to get there by overindulging yourself and eating more than you body needed on a pretty regular basis. Each person has to struggle with this more or less than other people and it isn’t always easy, just as some people have gambling problems, drinking problems, pornography problems. It is just another weakness many have to face. People like to gloss over being overweight, but it is fairly black and white for the vast majority of the human population, and a lot of times it is not politically correct to say that weight can be controlled in our day and age.

When talking about extra Biblical rules and how our rules should meet what is in the Bible, it is interesting you point to the world for your definition of standards on weight. Should we not use the Bible? Oh wait a minute the Bible doesn’t discuss weight. Look anywhere in the Bible (don’t use the verse about our bodies being a temple, keep it in context) and try to find where the Bible tells us what is or is not a sinful body weight or even really a discussion on spending our time concerned about our physical bodies. In fact if you look gluttony, while never painted in a good manner, it is never called a sin in the Bible. It is never listed in any of Paul’s sin lists. Simply because someone’s weight doesn’t match what the world says (who is looking for a way to live forever outside of God’s way) does not mean we can be judgmental and say that person is a glutton. The real problem is applying our consciences to other people and if they don’t meet our standards, they must be sinning.

[wkessel1]

When talking about extra Biblical rules and how our rules should meet what is in the Bible, it is interesting you point to the world for your definition of standards on weight. [/Quote]

And yet we do the same thing with drunkeness. What is the definition of drunkeness? That’s right, the Bible doesn’t indicate a blood/alcohol level.

Ezekial 16:49 (lists is as one of the abominations of Sodom, not homosexuality, but excess of food)

Philipians 3:19

Proverb 23:20-21

The real problem is applying our consciences to other people and if they don’t meet our standards, they must be sinning.

Exactly that is the real question

I have not been following this well but Aaron’s first comment that “rule keeping is​ a means of spirituality” is puzzling. Perhaps I am missing something. So more rule keeping is a means of more spirituality? As I understand the Scriptures and grace there is nothing that I do that is in itself a “means of spirituality.” The rules we follow should reflect God’s work in our lives, may serve as necessary parameters to promote stability, institutional harmony, and an external testimony. Yet as a means to spirituality I am afraid this is way to close to performance-based Christian living, surface conformity, subjection to the rules of others, and the keeping of lists. As best the terminology is confusing. At worst it rings as legalistic.

The examples Aaron gives, even with his clarifications, about gambling and tax returns are not in any shape or form a means of spirituality or godly living. They may or not reflect the work of the Spirit of God (since a lost person can keep rules these rules) and are worthy principles to live by. But as “means of spirituality” they in fact allow us to pride ourselves on how good we are at doing the rules right. And at least give the impression that more rules will bring about more spirituality. It seems far better to see the Word, Spirit, worship, the Lord’s Table as means of spirituality and the rules as the outworking of what God is doing in our lives at different points of our discipleship journey in our midst.

“Are there any ‘rules’ (I’m not referring to spiritual principles or commands like Romans 12:1-2) that you take straight from the pages of the NT?”

Lot’s of them. A few examples:

• Lie not to one another (Col. 3:9)
• Don’t steal (Eph. 4:28)
• Don’t sue your brother (2Cor.6:1)

But I’m not sure what that proves one way or the other. The specific claim I’m making is not that all rules are good rules or that rules alone are transformative but that we should not dismiss rules as a means of spiritual growth/godly living.

In support of that thesis I used a sort of quasi-syllogism. It’s really a definition argument: some rules are accurate applications of Scripture, therefore some rules are means of spiritual growth. There are other arguments as well, but that one’s probably the least complex.

Examples of rules being misused, badly derived from Scripture, poorly communicated, etc. don’t prove the broad-brush anti-legalism talk that says believing “rules are a means of spirituality” is legalism.

An interesting subpoint is the question of whether the potential usefulness of disciplined living/applying Scripture in specific ways (aka “rulekeeping”) changes when you impose the rule on someone else.

The answer is ​not necessarily

It’s definitely a different dynamic when you keep a rule you don’t understand or agree with. But even that can be​, in some cases, a “means of spirituality.” So in the case of second hand rulekeeping, we should also not make the broadbrushed criticism believing rulekeeping is a means of spirituality = legalism.

So I’m making another claim now—really an expansion of the first one: rulekeeping can be a means of godly living/spiritual growth even for those who do not believe in or understand the rule.

Here’s a supporting argument:

How we behave affects the state of our inner man/”heart.” As a specific example, good habits (along with other factors) help us increase faith, love, aversion to sin and “appetite” for godly living.

• So, to put it in form of a broad premise, good habits help us walk worthy of our calling.
• Second premise: even rules we don’t agree with or understand can be instrumental in developing good habits.
• Conclusion: even rules we don’t agree with or understand can be instrumental in helping us live godly lives.

That’s the argument (there are others—and ways to support the premises, but this post is already kind of long).

Here’s a little example. It’s apt in at least one way: these kinds of rules are especially likely to be helpful to the immature.

My son believes that playing computer games all day is a great way to spend one’s time. He also believes that learning multiplication tables has no value. But I have a rule: he doesn’t get to play until he spends several minutes with me going over multiplication sequences.

How is that helping him with godly living? A couple of ways. It’s helping him learn by experience what the Christian virtue of submission is all about (clue: it isn’t “submission” if you agree with it). Second, it’s helping him be a better steward of his time and his mind—again, he is getting experience in doing this, though he doesn’t yet “see” it. Third, it’s helping him learn that goofing off is what you do after you work.

So in a lot of ways this discussion has to do with how we understand the relationship between what we call “sanctification” and what we usually call “character.” I think most people assume that good habits are vital to good character and that rulekeeping helps develop character.

But when you are regenerate, how can you separate good character from sanctification, from growing in grace? Since you are a new creation, they become essentially the same thing.

OK, almost done: one clarification—or response to anticipated objection. I’m not saying that rulekeeping is enough​ to grow a person in grace or develop character. I’m saying it’s wrong to dismiss rulekeeping as a means and label it legalism.