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.
Discussion
NewStill a problem here
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:
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:
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.
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.
NewI think most fundamentalists
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.
NewRules
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.
G. N. Barkman
NewAaron Blumer wrote: I get
Aaron,
I get what you’re saying here, but I’m uncomfortable with it. Yes, based on your three theorems ‘rule keeping is a means of spirituality’ can be a valid logical conclusion, but I think that this is an extrabiblical jump. 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? There were lots of rules in the OT, but they have largely been done away with (see the book of Hebrews).
As for the value of ‘disciplined living’ - I don’t think that anyone here is arguing that disciplined living is a bad thing. I’d personally like to be more disciplined in some ways!
"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
NewDittos to David
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.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
NewDifference
I think there’s a difference in my mind that I wanted to note here before we go any further:
“Rules” - man made creations, usually (but not always) based off of Biblical or Societal norms/commands. Some rules are developed due to inferred conclusions from Biblical laws/precepts.
“Laws” - Biblical commands that are explicitly laid out in the Bible, like Ephesians 4:29 or Exodus 20:13
"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
New"My rules for me" versus "my rules for you"
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:
My rules for you:
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewAaron Blumer wrote:In the
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.
Newdgszweda wrote: Well take for
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
NewStrawmen?
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.
Dave Barnhart
NewLee wrote: dgszweda
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.
Newextra biblical standards?
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.
Newwkessel1 wrote: When talking
NewRules as a means of spirituality????
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.
Stephen M. Davis, PhD
https://www.gracechurchphilly.org/ www.stephenmdavis.com
NewMore or less random responses
“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:
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.
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.
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.