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
[Jay] 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?
Actually, I would call you mistaken or a legalist depending on your reasons. Really.
I would agree with David. Lets take the KJV only crowd. Two divisions. There are those in the past who feel that KJV is the only good translation, and require it in their organizations or fellowships. I would say they are mistaken. Now there are those who have taken that idea farther. They have said that anyone who was not led to the Lord through the KJV of the Bible are not truly saved. They would have taken that belief a step further by requiring that view for salvation. They have become legalists. And do to their problematic view on soteriology I would myself have to question (not deny, but question) their own salvation.
If you disagree with my views on culture and think they are to strict and mistaken, fine. That is your right. But as long as I don’t make that an issue of salvation then you are making a huge inappropriate accusation by calling me a legalist.
[paynen]I would agree with David. Lets take the KJV only crowd. Two divisions. There are those in the past who feel that KJV is the only good translation, and require it in their organizations or fellowships. I would say they are mistaken. Now there are those who have taken that idea farther. They have said that anyone who was not led to the Lord through the KJV of the Bible are not truly saved. They would have taken that belief a step further by requiring that view for salvation. They have become legalists. And do to their problematic view on soteriology I would myself have to question (not deny, but question) their own salvation.
If you disagree with my views on culture and think they are to strict and mistaken, fine. That is your right. But as long as I don’t make that an issue of salvation then you are making a huge inappropriate accusation by calling me a legalist.
But that’s what you did in the first post on the thread, and that’s why I wanted to push you on it. :) See?
[paynen] I don’t think Dr. Bauder or Dr. Aniol would ever necessarily call one with a contemporary view of culture liberal. though many from your Group B definitely hold that Group A is legalistic. The big issue your talking about though takes place when , people get involved in the debate without knowledge on the views they are actually supporting. So they will call Contemporaries liberal and then in turn those mistakes get attached unfairly the original proponents of the view.The other issue is a misunderstanding of what legalism actually means. In order for one to be legalistic they must be requiring works for righteousness. The pharisees were legalistic because they demanded that one follow the law and temple traditions in order for someone to be viewed righteous by God. So by definition only a works based form of salvation can be considered legalistic. So legalism should not even be a part of the debate. The issue being dealt with are corporate convictions and stewardship of our churches. I think what may help laymen and others who want to understand what is going on, is to actually read the material of each view before jumping into what is going on in regards of the arguments. That means reading books that have been published, not just jumping straight onto SI and jumping into conversations like many do. (not saying that that is what you are doing, I believe your post was respectful and gave us a accurate representation of what is going on for many people, and I thank you for your contribution.)
And that was Bob Bixby’s whole point. Legalism is and can be charged to people outside of a salvific context. In his argument (and mine, although I haven’t developed that line yet), it is legalism to force someone to comply with a principle that you have determined from your own Bible study if you have no specific ‘authority’ over that person. This is why it’s fine for BJU (to pick a current example) is fine to come up with music standards for their own students. If I imposed my music standards on you, I would be a legalist. If I were your pastor, would I be right to tell you to use X musical style? What if I were a music ‘authority’ like Scott Aniol? Then what? I get frustrated because we allow ‘authorities’ in specific fields to take positions - and even discipline or slander - others all the time because they thought or were convinced differently.
I don’t care what your personal music standards are as long as you are ‘convinced in your own mind’ (Romans 14:5). It’s not about getting you to my ‘side’ of the music divide. It’s about why do we allow people to impose their standards on other Christians when they have no right or authority to. That’s the underlying issue that I’ve been trying to address in my own thinking for a long, long time now.
"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
Jay,
Scott or Bauder is not imposing on you or anyone else. He (they) is stating his case for a conservative music and worship philosophy. Scott is not your pastor or parent. Disagree with him or Bauder if you will (and I do on some of their issues); nevertheless, the name calling of legalist and racist that some are throwing their way is unfair, pejorative, and ad hominem in my judgment. Scott, I am reasonably sure, will send you his doctoral dissertation on the subject. He successfully defended it before all the “old men” Ph.D’s at Southwestern seminary who are obviously blinded by the foolishness of this 30-something upstart. Several notable leaders in their denomination have observed the music and worship trends in their own churches over the last 30 years and they are less than impressed. They see Scott as a valuable asset.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Mike Harding] Scott or Bauder is not imposing on you or anyone else. He (they) is stating his case for a conservative music and worship philosophy. Scott is not your pastor or parent. Disagree with him or Bauder if you will (and I do on some of their issues); nevertheless, the name calling of legalist and racist that some are throwing their way is unfair, pejorative, and ad hominem in my judgment.Scott, I am reasonably sure, will send you his doctoral dissertation on the subject. He successfully defended it before all the “old men” Ph.D’s at Southwestern seminary who are obviously blinded by the foolishness of this 30-something upstart. Several notable leaders in their denomination have observed the music and worship trends in their own churches over the last 30 years and they are less than impressed. They see Scott as a valuable asset.
Mike,
This isn’t about me or Scott. This is about people labeling Northland as ‘compromised’ and ‘backsliding’ because they chose to hold different music standards than most would. That’s what started this whole discussion a few weeks ago. This is about brothers in the Lord fighting - unnecessarily - and damaging the body of Christ over musical standards. You yourself have said that music is an issue that you would separate over. Yes, there were a few other issues, but it was always the musical thing when we got down to the nitty gritty in SI discussions. Remember? I asked you that very question on the Has Northland Drifted Away from Fundamentalism? thread. That was what sparked all the debates and subsequent threads here on SharperIron.
As for the name calling complaint - I’m sorry, but I don’t want to hear it. Not when I see this:
So, Mike, are you equating progressives with the devil?
I agree, of course, which is my point. There’s probably not going to be a consensus here because we disagree on method.
this:
…The issue really isn’t one of application, because you (and others!) deny that Scripture even applies to musical style. That’s really where the debate lies…
this:
…But once again, Jay, your analogy implies that we have not based our judgments on what we truly believe to be reasonable application of Scripture. Your analogy is demeaning and uncharitable to those who hold convictions about music.
this:
…We (or I, at least) am quite open to anyone disagreeing with my interpretation of Scripture or how I apply Scripture to musical choices. I welcome discussion on these matters. Anyone who reads me honestly will have to admit that I welcome such discourse. That doesn’t mean I will agree, of course. But if someone is willing to say, “Here is why I think the form of rap is fitting with biblical principles” (for example) I am more than willing to hear him out.
Yet you are denying us even the right to claim that we have these convictions based upon Scripture. You insist, rather, that we admit that our judgments are based on personal preference alone. Folks like you are unwilling to disagree with us on the basis of our interpretation or application; rather you shut down any discussion by claiming that the Bible doesn’t say anything about musical style or that we are defending preference.
So which is the more charitable option? (a) Take us at our Word that we have with all honestly attempted to rightly apply the Word of God and have based our judgments on those applications, and therefore engage us on that level, or (b) insist that our convictions are baseless and based on preference alone?
If this whole debate were founded only on preference, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly that we should allow each to have his preferences (you prefer steak? I prefer tofu! eh, who cares!)
But at least allow us the right to hold (what we truly believe are, at least) biblical convictions and engage us on that level.
Should I continue? Maybe I should quote some of the blatantly false accusations in other threads.
Stop acting like your side alone has the high ground. Those of use who are being ‘equated with the Devil’ are sick of it.
"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
Jay,
Scott and Mike Riley (I am assuming that is the “Mike” in your post, because it’s not me) are responsible for their arguments. I did not see Mike calling anyone the Devil. I didn’t see name calling by Scott in your post either. Scott’s normally careful about that kind of thing. Bauder is also quite careful about name-calling and ad hominem arguments as such. I don’t doubt, however, there are violations of this nature on both sides of the argument.
Pastor Mike Harding
Mike,
I can appreciate your push back. I think it is a fair commentary to note that many of those older sage SBC guys see something of value in Scott’s work. Furthermore it’s of interest to me that Scott’s view is actually accepted in an orb outside of Type A fundamentalism. That always gives me pause. When I see a leader being accepted only by his corner of the vineyard - that doesn’t say much. When I see multiple sections of the vineyard opening up to a leaders thoughts - I stop and reconsider the message. That’s just me. Of course that is tempered by the academic nature of the seminary ethos. Scott may represent a philosophical alternative that these SBC men are for the moment intrigued by. Time will tell how Scott does in an SBC context. I honestly hope he does well. I pray he finds a “niche” and a community that receives well his “niche.”
So, I would hope that even in a case like “music” which always brings peoples emotions to a “bubble!” we can debate with vigor…..yet at the end of the day remain charitable with those differences.
Mike, my guess is both sides - or all three or four or five or how ever many views we have here at SI - most of us have a bit of a chip on our shoulder because we just know that the other guy is trying to throw us under the bus. We just know that you and Bauder and Scott and the rest of the “Beethoven Group” are looking down your long reformed/refined noses at the rest of us who are so base as to use that which is syncopated or hymnody which misses your aug-ust target.
Actually I’m kind of relieved Scott has ended up as a Southern Baptist. It demonstrates what I kind of knew with you BG guys - there is some diversity amongst you guys after all. That’s outstanding - you have to love diversity. So I would be first to say - in a sense I’m not offended if your personal or even your church view of music is more or less “strident” than mine as long as you love the Lord, preach the gospel and are striving to live under the corporate and individual Lordship of Christ….and that you would not tag the brotherhood as “losers” just because they don’t hold to everything your music philosophy represents.
So I think If you and men like you can say - you “non-BG men” out there can still be good men if you take a different view of this - I think the tone would diminish. I don’t think we have heard you guys say that. If you have said that maybe you need to say it louder - use pictures - you know you and me with our arms around each other - around the SI camp fire. Stuff like that.
Many have this fear that was engraved in them back in the 80’s or 90’s that as soon as you cross “the man” or the local fundamentalist “war lord” on whatever - then your ministry or influence is over. It doesn’t dawn on guys those days are over - Hallelujah the Fiefdoms are finished! It doesn’t work that way any more - imagine my little “happy dance” here. OK - don’t image my happy dance.
Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - as to the Devil thing - let me add my own thought there - go ASU “Sun Devils!”
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Jay,
Please correct if I’m simply being blockheaded here and missing your nuance, but are you reading the quote you cited from Scott (and, indirectly, from me) as saying that those advocating a progressive position on music are somehow like the devil? If so (and again, if I’m just failing to read you correctly, please let me know), I wish to apologize for an unclear use of language.
When I said, “Let me play progressives’ advocate,” I used that locution specifically because I wanted to avoid saying “devil’s advocate” in connection to the position I’m arguing against. When Scott asked, “Are you equating progressives with the devil?” I took him (he can clarify here, as he wishes) as making an attempt at humor (which is dangerous in a heated discussion). When he says, “I agree, of course,” he is not saying that he agrees that progressives are like the devil. To read him as saying that is completely wrong. What he agrees with is not linking progressives to the devil, but (in the context, this seems apparent to me) the further point that I made in the post itself (that disagreement between conservatives and progressives goes down to method of argumentation). He clarifies this directly in the sentence that you quote from him and leave unhighlighted.
This is likely too long a post for is a simple misunderstanding, but I wouldn’t want anyone reading this to think that those of us arguing for conservatism would simply write off progressives as being “like the devil.” We have not done so, and would not do so.
Come on………..
Aaron posted this thread to begin with - we need to see more “pejoratives” against Aaron for even writing this note. Let me start - Aaron - you dork! I don’t know why you are a dork - but I just know you are for some reason. Take that you hyper-legalistic, compromising, hyper-sensitive, left-leaning, ultra right buffoon!
So there!
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I agree with Mikes first statement, I have not really been involved with the Northland disagreement and a see it as a completely different issue. And I am not really sure of the context of anything you’ve just quoted, so I will not comment on it. I don’t really see that as the same issue (though it probably is a related one). The issue you are dealing with in the above is separation, not legalism. The question you are alluding to is a question about separation and whether or not non-salvific issues are appropriate to separate over, I would assume we would probably disagree on this judging by your post, but in my mind that is not the issue of what I am talking about. I am dealing specifically with the subject of legalism and what it really means when someone uses that term. Mike was correct in saying that no one (necessarily, I really can’t speak for other standard users on SI because I am speaking from my own standards and speaking in defense of Kevin and Scott, whose work I am familiar with) is imposing upon anyone anything. Now some would argue and perhaps you are among them, that separation in a way is imposing upon others. But I would disagree with that especially when dealing with my own circles. This has much to do with the idea of covenanting institutions. I personally view separation in this way, as separation is often the negative aspect to the whole view. Institutions that agree to work together and share the work of the ministry together. This is first (and biblically seen) on the church level. In a local church people covenant around a church covenant, When you join a church you are required to agree to and often sign such a covenant. Very few church covenants of any stripe are just made up of doctrine, they deal with polity, worship, and philosophy issues as well. When one agrees to such a covenant they are responsible to abide by that covenant, and if they don’t they are subject to church discipline. This is not legalism, because the reason you are being disciplined is due to breaking a covenant not any of the actual issues at hand. Now when institutions work together (at least in denominations that are autonomous) they agree to work together based on like doctrine, convictions, and philosophy and direction. It is perfectly acceptable for one institution to chose not to work together or to separate from another institution when that institution changes doctrine, convictions, philosophy, or direction. In fact they can really chose not to share the ministry for any reason what so ever. Why? Because we live in a Stewardship of Grace. It is up to us and our church leaders to best decide who to cooperate with using the limited time and resources we are given. Now the difficulty happens due to all of our sin. When institutions work together for a long period of time and then one side decides to stop that cooperation based on a change in direction, due to the complexity of the interworkings of the fellowship and the amount of human beings with sin natures involved, things always get messy. It is almost inevitable. People say things they regret, due to emotions and/or not fully understanding the situation. Articles get written back and forth to try to help explain to constituents why things are happening this way, this leads to discussions that tend to get heated as people weigh in their opinions on what is happening. It does not discredit the need for choosing not to work with certain organizations that are made up of individuals that truly love the Lord with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind. It does not discredit separation or the stances of any parties involved. It is a part of this messy thing called life. Sin stinks. Have people on both sides said things they shouldn’t have? You bet ya. But is anyone being a Liberal or a Legalist, there may be some individuals but they are in the minority. Is Northland compromising? possibly. I usually don’t use those words, but it is very likely from the little I’ve paid attention to the whole thing that they are changing or moving in a direction they have previously said they wouldn’t and there may be support for some people to say this has something to do with trying to improve enrollment numbers in an economy that has hit most Bible colleges very hard. That by definition would be compromise. That being said. I really don’t have in opinion on that because I wasn’t really ever a huge fan of Northland before any of this happened. My intentions in my posts in this thread were to clarify terms and deal with objective issues.
Joel,
I recently returned from Brazil teaching at the Baptist Mid Missions seminary in Curatiba. Taught homiletics and hermeneutics there for about 50 hours and preached in numerous churches at night and on the weekends. I learned how to speak Portuguese in one week. Just add “O” to every word—Pastooor Miguel Hardingo. Please, Greg, no more pictures. The missionaries greeted me with a blown-up poster of your last artistic creation. I don’t remember signing a release on that either.
Actually, Joel, there is a decent amount of literature on this subject from the evangelical world. Scott is tapping into those resources. The worship/music debate is much more than a fundamentalist shibboleth. My personal position is very close, nearly identical, to the recently published BJU statement. I know Scott, Riley, Bauder, and myself well enough that we are not looking down our arrogant noses at you, Jay, et. al. I think the BJU statement indicates a similar attitude. Kum Bai Yah, My Lord, Kum Bai Yahhhhh, mmm mmm mmmmm my Lord, mmm mmm mmmmmmmm (slowly fade). You see, Joel, I’m not nearly uptight as you think I am.
Pastor Mike Harding
Joel,
I will have to correct you again. In Portuguese it is pronounced “Dorkooo”.
Pastor Mike Harding
In the opening post, the follow words can be seen.
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.
Upon looking up the link to Olson, I found the following words.
Institutional rules, regulations, guidelines, and policies can serve a purpose. We all have them as a functioning part of life—whether home, church, or institution. Rules have the ability to protect, structure, and control behavior but they cannot produce spiritual life, real growth, or lasting fruit. 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.
When the OP uses the words “no relation to spirituality or sanctification” that is missing the point that Olson is making. Olson is simply applying Galatians to the issue; what he is addressing is the effective causes of spiritual life, etc. “Relationship” is another category. The OP is taking a step back in specificity, but in so doing the paraphrase broadens the category addressed, to the point that the paraphrase now becomes a straw man, since it is now encompassing a much broader field. Olson also appears to be making a distinction between “functional” standards and the viewing of those standards as if they are the effective cause of spiritual life, real growth, or lasting fruit.
Whether or not his point is valid is not at issue for me right now; I’m just pointing out what I see as a misrepresentation. Once, a correct representation finds its way into the discussion, then there may be something to discuss.
Finally, I’m sorry if this has been addressed already, but I’m just responding to the Opening Post with some preliminary thoughts before even looking at the 55+ responses.
[Anne Sokol]It appears that someone has beat me to the punch, though I addressed it a bit differently.…
no one who really understands God’s grace believes this:
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.”
Matt wrote:
Rules have the ability to protect, structure, and control behavior but they cannot produce spiritual life, real growth, or lasting fruit. Authentic Christianity can only be realized through Christ, by means of His Spirit and His Word, as faith is exercised.
There is a lot of difference between these two statements.
… Back to your regularly scheduled programming …
Please, Greg, no more pictures. The missionaries greeted me with a blown-up poster of your last artistic creation. I don’t remember signing a release on that either.
Ha! We have some BMM connections there- folks we support and so on. Well done, guys! :)
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Discussion