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
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?
So what you’re saying, Lee, is that if you think the reasons fit, you can discipline a member or even throw them out of the church entirely on your say-so.
I’m sorry, but at this point you look like you’re far more interested in justifying the use of authority or power than you ‘have’ than you are in just about anything else.
"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
I agree that we should be ‘principle-based’, but application puts a finer point on the principle. IOW, I can talk about the fact that an idol doesn’t have any power, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to buy that cute little statue of Buddha and sit it on my mantle.
As for the Playboy bunny example, there is more than one principle that applies- we have clear standards for those in leadership, but we allow for growth in those who are not, so we ‘excuse’ certain behaviors in immature Christians. However, do we ever allow those we consider to be still-growing to help out in certain areas that puts them ‘up front’, so to speak, while they are still of the mind that something like a Playboy bunny t-shirt is no big deal?
The problems I see in Christianity today are all related to extremism of one stripe or the other. There is little balance, because balance is Hard Work, and we want easy answers, formulas, programs, and handy-dandy charts to show us where we and everyone stands.
In my opinion, a large part of the problem is that the Biblical ‘standard’, so to speak, of the relationship between mature and immature Christians is one of mentoring and nurturing. We don’t have the time or patience for that, so it’s easier to call them ‘backslidden’ or ‘stubborn’ and kick them to the curb. In our faithless generation, sometimes you are dealing with people who don’t know whether or not it was Moses or Noah who built the ark. Or they know it was Noah because they saw this movie once…
[Jay]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?
So what you’re saying, Lee, is that if you think the reasons fit, you can discipline a member or even throw them out of the church entirely on your say-so.
I’m sorry, but at this point you look like you’re far more interested in justifying the use of authority or power than you ‘have’ than you are in just about anything else.
Is there a difference between a shirt with a cute little bunny rabbit face on it and a shirt with a Playboy bunny logo on it?
Lee
[Jim][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?
No, you didn’t, so am I to assume they would not continue as the special duet just before the message? And is that because they are wearing the shirts? Help me out here, I’m trying to keep up.
Lee
OK and valuable and good for a church to have standards for whom in choir and pulpit area. Say a suits on men rule or females must wear dresses, etc
Wrong headed to have a rule about who walks through the door. Someone comes in with stupid T-shirt … it’s their stupidity.
By the way, I’ve never seen anyone in church with an offensive shirt. I’ve seen it at retail stores, sporting events, etc.
[Lee] Is there a difference between a shirt with a cute little bunny rabbit face on it and a shirt with a Playboy bunny logo on it?
Lee, no one brought up the Playboy thing other than you, and I’m not talking about that. The issue is that you want to be able to discipline and excommunicate people based on your say-so alone. That’s a recipe for the kind of abuse that Hyles/Schaap built a whole empire on, and that’s the kind of “Fundamentalism” that needs to die.
Speaking as someone who had the opportunity to serve as an interim pastor for a little while, I don’t WANT the kind of power that allows me to discipline or excommunicate people based on something as simple as what they wore. That’s too much power, and any kind of craving for that ability is simply unhealthy and ungodly.
"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
Some of this sounds too much like Diotrephes.
“I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.” (III John 9,10)
G. N. Barkman
[Jay][Lee] Is there a difference between a shirt with a cute little bunny rabbit face on it and a shirt with a Playboy bunny logo on it?Lee, no one brought up the Playboy thing other than you, and I’m not talking about that. The issue is that you want to be able to discipline and excommunicate people based on your say-so alone. That’s a recipe for the kind of abuse that Hyles/Schaap built a whole empire on, and that’s the kind of “Fundamentalism” that needs to die.
Jay, I think you need to go back and read the thread again, carefully. You are clearly missing the point. And you are missing some of the facts. Lee didn’t bring the bunny up.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Jim]OK and valuable and good for a church to have standards for whom in choir and pulpit area. Say a suits on men rule or females must wear dresses, etc
Wrong headed to have a rule about who walks through the door. Someone comes in with stupid T-shirt … it’s their stupidity.
By the way, I’ve never seen anyone in church with an offensive shirt. I’ve seen it at retail stores, sporting events, etc.
You’re hedging. Change the shirts to Playboy logo earrings. The guy has tasteful small ones, but hers are large, dangly ones.
BTW, just to keep up, we’re not talking about somebody that just walks in. From the original Corinthian scenario it was someone who has history with the church, is a member in good standing, and of adult age.
Lee
[Jay][Lee] Is there a difference between a shirt with a cute little bunny rabbit face on it and a shirt with a Playboy bunny logo on it?Lee, no one brought up the Playboy thing other than you, and I’m not talking about that. The issue is that you want to be able to discipline and excommunicate people based on your say-so alone. That’s a recipe for the kind of abuse that Hyles/Schaap built a whole empire on, and that’s the kind of “Fundamentalism” that needs to die.
Speaking as someone who had the opportunity to serve as an interim pastor for a little while, I don’t WANT the kind of power that allows me to discipline or excommunicate people based on something as simple as what they wore. That’s too much power, and any kind of craving for that ability is simply unhealthy and ungodly.
Is reading comprehension an issue with you? I believe it was Susan who wanted to update the scenario to the Playboy logo. My scenario was in 1st century Corinth, a city given wholly to the worship practices of Aphrodite. But the two are similar.
Each symbol, whether the swans/scallop/dolphin of 1st century Corinth, or the Playboy bunny logo of today, has meaning that the general society (both Christians and pagans) would recognize. The issue is identifying, especially in the church, with those meanings. One is clearly idolatrous, and the other is clearly an identity with sexual immorality. Both are abhorrent to Christ in His church, as per the messages to Pergamos and Thyatira in Rev. 2.
While neither the bunny nor the swan, etc., is specifically mentioned in Scripture, that their meaning is recognized in their generation in their specific society cannot be in doubt. There are specific principles given in I Cor. 6-10 that address the believer’s response to immorality and cultural idolatry, even to the level of symbols.
So, if I take those Scripture principles and make specific application to my church in my generation in my society I am now a power monger antagonistic to the liberty that is in Christ Jesus?
Frankly, I agree with Aaron that this discussion should focus on principles before scenarios, but we’re kinda too late for that.
Lee
[Don Johnson][Jay]Jay, I think you need to go back and read the thread again, carefully. You are clearly missing the point. And you are missing some of the facts. Lee didn’t bring the bunny up.[Lee] Is there a difference between a shirt with a cute little bunny rabbit face on it and a shirt with a Playboy bunny logo on it?Lee, no one brought up the Playboy thing other than you, and I’m not talking about that. The issue is that you want to be able to discipline and excommunicate people based on your say-so alone. That’s a recipe for the kind of abuse that Hyles/Schaap built a whole empire on, and that’s the kind of “Fundamentalism” that needs to die.
Don,
I appreciate the admonition, but Susan’s example of the playboy bunny is practically irrelevant. As Jim noted, most people wouldn’t wear a playboy bunny shirt anyway, let alone if they were engaged and participating in a Scriptural church. The issue that Lee keeps sidestepping is that he wants to ‘make the call’ on what is and is not acceptable Christian behavior and act accordingly (even discipline people out of the church he’s in) because he said so. There is no difference between Lee choosing to discipline someone on the basis of their jewelry and Jack Hyles throwing someone out of his church for questioning his authority.
Maybe I’m reading too much into what he’s writing, but it certainly seems like he is establishing himself as the determining factor for what is and is not acceptable for believers - that’s a clear misunderstanding of the role of the Holy Spirit and the duties of a shepherding pastor. I have a HUGE problem with what he says, and I think Lee should have a problem with that too, which is why I keep harping on it. We’d both have problems with it if you were doing that, I think.
"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
See my earlier post here:
I’m ok with institutional rules. Eg our church has rule that when the Scripture is read from the pulpit it will be a certain version. Examples of institutional rules in the church setting. And none have to do with justification or sanctification. Just “order” . Examples from my ministry experience that I find valid
- In a church I pastored, we had a rule that those serving in certain capacities should faithfully attend the AM and PM service (and before anyone asks … sickness, travel and the occassional other reasons are OK. (There was no police … but when it came time to appoint this was considered and was deemed important))
- Kids attending camp should not bring music players (back then it was Sony Walkmans (cassettes) but you get the point. Music can be a distraction in that setting.
In the realm of sanctification I see that rules for me are valuable (please read my earlier post .. I’m not going to repeat the same!). Rules for me that flow from my understanding and applicaiton of Scripture are helpful and a natural part of growth and maturity. The rules don’t sanctify but rather flow from sanctification. An example not earlier cited in my post is that I do not shop on Sunday unless it is absolutely necessary (break-fix at the house or gas while traveling)
Rules for others (I called it “rules for you”) are not helpful aside from the aforementioned institutional requirements. So for example (and this gets to your questions about bunnies on shirts / earrings that some may find possibly offensive): I’ve never seen a need to have a dress code for someone walking into church. I’ve seen many things here: shorts, flip flops, skirts shorter than I would approve on my own wife, etc.
In response to:
From the original Corinthian scenario it was someone who has history with the church, is a member in good standing, and of adult age.
The job of the elder-teacher is to teach and apply the Word and prayerfully trust the Holy Spirit to make application in individual lives. Now … how would you handle it?
[Jim]In response to:
From the original Corinthian scenario it was someone who has history with the church, is a member in good standing, and of adult age.The job of the elder-teacher is to teach and apply the Word and prayerfully trust the Holy Spirit to make application in individual lives. Now … how would you handle it?
In the matter of identifying with the prevalent idolatry:
Scripture makes it clear that objects have meaning given them, not by Scripture, but by their idolatrous or immoral influences on the culture (I Cor. 10). But that meaning is just as real as if Scripture had named it.
That meaning/identification is so whether I want to believe it or not (I Cor. 10:20)
Neither immorality nor idolatry is to be tolerated in the church (I Cor. 10:1-14) or allowed any favor (Rev. 2:14, 20)
Once identification is positively made, the items are to be shunned immediately (I Cor. 10:28)
That identification can come from any number of legitimate sources including the unregenerate “any man” (I Cor. 10:28) or the pastor of the church (Acts 15:20)
It is neither prideful nor authoritarian to instruct a church member about what they are, in actuality doing—identifying with and/or promoting a generally recognizable idolatry and/or immorality in the church of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, upon receipt of this information, to continue in it, and especially to flaunt it as their liberty, is an act of willful disobedience to Scripture.
Why should my reaction to this willful disobedience to Scripture be any different than my reaction on any other willful disobedience to Scripture, especially within the assembly?
Lee
[Lee] It is neither prideful nor authoritarian to instruct a church member about what they are, in actuality doing—identifying with and/or promoting a generally recognizable idolatry and/or immorality in the church of Jesus Christ.Furthermore, upon receipt of this information, to continue in it, and especially to flaunt it as their liberty, is an act of willful disobedience to Scripture.
Why should my reaction to this willful disobedience to Scripture be any different than my reaction on any other willful disobedience to Scripture, especially within the assembly?
Lee-
You have a very poor understanding of pastoring if this is the way you truly feel about the situation you described. I don’t know about you, but I’m glad God doesn’t treat us like this when we sin or are unsure about things.
"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]Lee-
You have a very poor understanding of pastoring if this is the way you truly feel about the situation you described. I don’t know about you, but I’m glad God doesn’t treat us like this when we sin or are unsure about things.
Ok, let’s illustrate with Scripture.
Acts 15:20 “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from …blood.” But member in good standing Matilda insists on bringing her world famous blue ribbon blood pudding to the church socials. Pastor James talks to her repeatedly over several months of socials. But she insists. He reacts to her as one in willful disobedience.
Should he have suffered her refusal to follow the Biblical dictate under the guise of liberty because he is a good pastor, or should he have held her accountable even before the church for her disobedience as a good pastor?
Lee
Discussion