Free to Live
Authentic Christianity can only be realized through Christ, by means of His Spirit and His Word, as faith is exercised. There is nothing to add. If you do, you have another gospel. Having rules and standards does not make a person a legalist, but making rule keeping as a means or a measure of spirituality does. That is the point.
Matthew Olson expands on his blogpost from last week with an explanation of what it means to be “Free To Live”.
For discussion on Olson’s post “The Attraction to Legalism”, see this thread.
- 1 view
[Lee] Let’s play a story game. You and I are co-pastors (see, we’re very progressive with our plurality of elders) of the 1st Baptist Church of Corinth, the hub of the worship of Aphrodite. One of the young ladies in the college-career class, having been in the church for some time, shows up wearing a very lovely pendant necklace of a golden scallop shell with a classy painting of a pair of swans, necks intertwined, beaks kissing, on it. As pastor you let her know that that particular emblem is not appropriate for her to be wearing. She responds with “but I like it and it doesn’t mean anything to me.” Next meeting time she repeats, this time sporting a pair of dolphin earrings, assuring any who inquired that this was simply a fashion choice—she just liked the look.
Lee, you just blew a hole in your own story. Why would she NEED to be disciplined? I can understand someone pulling her aside to explain whatever significance there is to the dolphins, swans, or shells (I personally don’t know what you’re referring to), but you’re seriously telling me that you would contemplate throwing her out of the church because she wore jewelry? Really?
You need to re-read Matthew 18, bro. She hasn’t been “overtaken in a fault” and certainly hasn’t refused to “repent” for sin that she hasn’t even committed, so discipline is not applicable here.
"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
[Jim]Is this just hypothetical or do these things really mean something?
…Do these things really signify anything? If so tell me please. Thanks
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/greek-gods-and-goddess-symbols.html
These things would have been known in Corinth.
Lee
[G. N. Barkman]I would hope not. She has not violated a Biblical command. The Elders have put themselves in a difficult position by requiring her to obey a man-made rule. Now what? Are they going to be Pharisees, casting her out for violating their rule? Are they going to cast her out because she disobeyed their authority? If authority is exercised without Biblical support, is it to be obeyed? Is it legitimate authority?
Perhaps the elders should take a few moments to thoughtfully read I Corinthians chapter 8. I will cite a few random statements:
“We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.” (vs. 4)
“But food (or jewelry) does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.” (vs. 8)
“Therefore if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” (13)
Verse 13 is Paul’s personal decision, his personal “rule.” He does not impose it upon others. He does not say, “Therefore if food makes my brother stumble, I will not allow you to ever again eat meat…”
Is the young girls acting immaturely? No doubt. Are the elders acting legalistically? No doubt. Hopefully, the elders will decide to become the mature Christian adults here, and lead by personal example in those areas where Scripture makes no requirements.
You can’t start a context without finishing a context:
“What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.”
IOW, the idol is nothing, but devils are real. Partaking of that identified with the idol is fellowshipping with devils, a matter that “ye cannot [do].”
Lee
Re:
These things would have been known in Corinth.
OK … not known to me but I do know this Any Pastors / Deacons own a Mazda?
The company website states that name “derives from Ahura Mazda, a god of the earliest civilizations in West Asia…the god of wisdom, intelligence and harmony…” Ahura Mazda is the Iranian – Zoroastrian God
AND:
For years Mazdas were manufactured at the Flat Rock, MI plant right alongside Fords (calling now for secondary separation!)
So I’m going to give the gal a pass on the kissing swans necklace!
Below is a picture of god Mazda (w the 1 HP transportation):
[Lee] You can’t start a context without finishing a context:“What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.”
IOW, the idol is nothing, but devils are real. Partaking of that identified with the idol is fellowshipping with devils, a matter that “ye cannot [do].”
So you would be justified in disciplining this woman because you decided that she is ‘partaking in the table of devils’ by wearing that jewelry, even when she said she had no problems with it? Yikes. I wouldn’t want to be in your church…that’s a clear abuse of the pastoral/shepherding role.
"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
[Jim]Re:
These things would have been known in Corinth.OK … not known to me but I do know this Any Pastors / Deacons own a Mazda?
The company website states that name “derives from Ahura Mazda, a god of the earliest civilizations in West Asia…the god of wisdom, intelligence and harmony…” Ahura Mazda is the Iranian – Zoroastrian GodAND:
For years Mazdas were manufactured at the Flat Rock, MI plant right alongside Fords (calling now for secondary separation!)
So I’m going to give the gal a pass on the kissing swans necklace!
Below is a picture of god Mazda (w the 1 HP transportation):
I’ll have issues with driving a Mazda when the temple of Mazda sits prominently above Fayetteville, and his prostitutes run down to the town every evening.
Now, try to stay focused here.
Lee
[Jay][Lee] You can’t start a context without finishing a context:“What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.”
IOW, the idol is nothing, but devils are real. Partaking of that identified with the idol is fellowshipping with devils, a matter that “ye cannot [do].”
So you would be justified in disciplining this woman because you decided that she is ‘partaking in the table of devils’ by wearing that jewelry, even when she said she had no problems with it? Yikes. I wouldn’t want to be in your church…that’s a clear abuse of the pastoral/shepherding role.
Who decided meat was partaking of the table of devils? I think you will find the answer in Acts 15. (Hint: it starts with a J and he was a pastor).
Lee
I think we need a better example. Like maybe someone wearing a shirt with a Playboy bunny on it. Or a bumper sticker on their car that says “Obama 2012”.
[Susan R]I think we need a better example. Like maybe someone wearing a shirt with a Playboy bunny on it. Or a bumper sticker on their car that says “Obama 2012”.
Run with it. Would that be a matter of rebuke and, if continued, discipline? The bunny has meaning.
Lee
[Susan R]I think we need a better example. Like maybe someone wearing a shirt with a Playboy bunny on it. Or a bumper sticker on their car that says “Obama 2012”.
I would not challenge a brother who had an Obama 2012 bumper sticker. He needs to shift through all the facts and vote his conscience.
It’s been a long long time since I’ve seen a shirt with a Playboy bunny. And I don’t think I’ve ever (I know I never have!) seen a Christian wearing a shirt like that.
[Jim][Susan R]I think we need a better example. Like maybe someone wearing a shirt with a Playboy bunny on it. Or a bumper sticker on their car that says “Obama 2012”.
I would not challenge a brother who had an Obama 2012 bumper sticker. He needs to shift through all the facts and vote his conscience.
It’s been a long long time since I’ve seen a shirt with a Playboy bunny. And I don’t think I’ve ever (I know I never have!) seen a Christian wearing a shirt like that.
The Obama bumper sticker example was very tongue-in-cheek. It needed a smilie.
As for the Playboy bunny, it’s an example of something innocent (a stylized rabbit’s head silhouette) that stands for something wicked (pornography/serial fornication). It isn’t the act of fornication or viewing porn to wear a shirt or have a keychain or an air freshener in your car with a Playboy bunny on it. So would wearing such a symbol be an immoral act in and of itself?
Re: So would wearing such a symbol be an immoral act in and of itself?
Answer: No.
Interesting direction the discussion went. Reflecting on it, I wonder if it’s better to nail down principles first then look for examples or start with examples and try to derive principles using them? My bent is toward “principles first.”
I think just about everybody would agree with a few points:
- Living by the book does require that we require or prohibit behavior of ourselves that is not specifically named in the Bible. (Though it may be hard to find examples we all agree on)
- Whether we call these prohibitions/mandates “rules” or not, they are “man made.”
- Both self discipline and discipline imposed by others have a role in our growth in godliness.
So what are the points of disagreement? I think these, among others:
- Which is the more widespread and insidious problem in Christianity today: an over-valuing of disciplined living or an undervaluing?
- Is over-valuing discipline/regulation of conduct by people who understand that justificaiton is by faith alone plus nothing properly or helpfully called “legalism”?
- Are people who believe it’s wrong to dress a certain way, drink certain beverages, listen to certain kinds of music, read certain kinds of books, etc. “legalists”?
- Is regulating our conduct (in the form of specific prohibitions/requirements, aka “rules”) something we should do only because we can’t completely avoid it or something that is actually important for living in obedience to Scripture?
- Does the NT present personal discipline (by regenerate people) favorably and imply that a life that is increasingly pleasing God is a result?
- Is personal discipline a secondary cause (all agree it is not the ultimate cause) of growth in godliness or purely a result of growth in godliness or some mix of the two?
(FWIW, my answers to the second set: 1- undervaluing, 2-not legalism, 3-probably not, 4-it’s important, 5-yes, 6-it’s both a cause and a result. The dynamic is one where God’s work in us results in changed conduct but also where He uses changed conduct to do His work in us.)
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.
[Jim]Re: So would wearing such a symbol be an immoral act in and of itself?
Answer: No.
So the couple wearing the matching T-shirts, hers with the Playboy Bunny logo and his with a picture of Hef in his trademark smoking jacket, members in good standing and scheduled to sing the offertory special, would still sing and wouldn’t be subject to spiritual scrutiny because those would be enforcing man-made rules?
Lee
[Lee][Jim]Re: So would wearing such a symbol be an immoral act in and of itself?
Answer: No.
So the couple wearing the matching T-shirts, hers with the Playboy Bunny logo and his with a picture of Hef in his trademark smoking jacket, members in good standing and scheduled to sing the offertory special, would still sing and wouldn’t be subject to spiritual scrutiny because those would be enforcing man-made rules?
I didn’t say that did I?
Discussion