JoelWNelson.com » legalism

Posts tagged legalism

Perfectionism, Legalism, and the Conscience

1

The small group study that I host, and periodically have the privilege of leading, is going through World Harvest Mission’s Sonship course. This is my second time through, so it has been interesting to compare notes taken this year with notes from 2008, to see what is the same and what has changed.  Today we focused on “My Liberated Conscience”, a message by Rose Marie Miller.  One thing she said caught our attention — that our consciences are often used against us.  This is not something that’s often talked about; conventional wisdom even in most Christian circles is to “follow your conscience” when it makes “noise”.

 

A “noisy” conscience can seem to be a good thing, but we must be careful to try to discern between legitimate promptings of the Spirit as opposed to the concerns of the flesh.  Our own desire for approval from others can lead to all actions being evaluated based on what others might think, which then lead to illegitimate conscience pangs — more concern over others’ responses than what is actually right.  This may lead us into fear, so that we don’t do what we ought because of how it might be viewed by others, or to “play it safe” and miss a bold act of love for the Kingdom.  Furthermore, one tactic of Satan is to relentlessly accuse Christians, to weaken us, get us to doubt our forgiveness, and think there’s something we need to do and keep doing in order to get it back. “Try harder or you’re not good enough” is not from the Holy Spirit, but rather an assault by Satan, intended to drive us into legalism or perfectionism.

 

Perfectionism and legalism go hand in hand, and are anti-Gospel.  How so?  Perfectionism says “Something is wrong with me unless I can do at least 100 percent” when it comes to performance, planning, organization, or possibly life in general.  The Law – God’s standard of righteousness – demands perfection.  A legalist is someone who tries to attain it through their actions (or get as close as possible) — essentially, a moral perfectionist. But with the Law, anything less than one hundred percent compliance is still not enough; it might as well be zero.  And of course it is not even possible to attain one hundred percent compliance to the moral standard, one hundred percent of the time — so the legalist and perfectionist are guaranteed to experience failure and frustration.

 

The Gospel provides the way of escape. It says, “100% is required. Here is that 100%. It’s yours; that 99.9% you thought you had is zero.”  See how freeing that is?  That doesn’t mean you don’t try to do your best, and doesn’t mean that it’s not important to do what’s right, but it does mean the pressure’s off.  Be free to live, to love, and enjoy what God brings, and to be a part of what he is doing.  There is no need to regret good intentions misinterpreted, good works that caused a stir, or to do your best and feel like it’s not enough. What matters is doing the right thing, by God’s grace, free from fear, doubt, and concern.  The Gospel means we’ve been given this.  We are accepted by God — so who cares what anyone else thinks!

 

Food for thought on this Saturday night…

Candy

0

I did something this year I haven’t ever done before.

I bought candy to hand out on Halloween.

Why, you might ask, does this matter?

Because it’s something I had previously had a hang-up about, going out of my way in the past to demonstrate just how much I was NOT observing the day. Even after leaving fundamentalism a few years ago, that was one day I still hadn’t warmed up to.  Observing Reformation Day instead was just fine with me (and so was critically questioning why anyone else really needed to observe the day).

But I didn’t really know WHY I made a point of ignoring the day now. In fundamentalism, I had lots of reasons (fear of associations, fear of what it would look like to others, and who knows what else). Still, as others I knew were warming up to the day more, I figured I might as well still keep my porch light off, hang out in the basement, and watch football.

Then I read this post by Jason Gray. I’d probably read it last year too when it was first posted, but for some reason it resonated more this year.  After that I realized that it was better to be a faithful presence in my neighborhood and be there to generously give kids some treats instead of hiding like a hermit. Especially since I’m supposed to be being an ambassador for a Kingdom far more powerful than anything supposedly associated with Halloween.

So… I bought candy.

And no kids came. So now I have lots of candy I need to find something to do with. But I found myself hoping they would come by – a change from the past years when I wanted nothing to do with it. And I would have been here if they had come. So that’s beneficial.

And happy Reformation Day too. A day when we commemorate the church’s rediscovering of the Doctrines of Grace. One of the great elements of the Reformed tradition is the view of God’s sovereignty and dominion over all things, and the call to Christians to be part of bringing all things into God’s rule. Including using October 31st as a day to be a Kingdom presence in one’s own community, and to know that whatever evil or morbidity is celebrated has lost its power thanks to Christ’s victory!

Now does anyone want to stop by for some free candy? Having lots of candy around the house is not a good thing for me!

Modern-Day Judaizers?

5

Definition of a Judaizer:
One who teaches “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (see Acts 15)

The entire epistle of Galatians focuses on Paul’s defense of his ministry in the face of accusations from Judaizers who had infiltrated the early church and was deceiving people into thinking that obedience to the Law was necessary for salvation. We often think that the Judaizers were just a problem in the first-century, but in reality we have a very close form of it among us today. Thanks to the spread of higher-life theology, which teaches that Christians are saved in a “carnal Christian” state and then must break through to a “deeper” or “higher” life to truly be among the Christian elite (a view I believe to be false doctrine at best and quite possibly heretical) — many choose forms of strict law-keeping as a means to that deeper, better Christian life.

Most Judaizer teachers today don’t come right out and directly say that one must follow the Law of Moses for salvation. On the strictest technical definition, then, a true Judaizer may be a rare thing in the church. But I still choose to use this definition because of the prevalence of the higher-life law-keeping in some churches and denominations today. And for many, circumcision does end up coming back as something to do out of obedience. Most don’t say that circumcision is necessary for salvation, but they do say that it is necessary for true obedience; for breaking through to that higher life. Consider Bill Gothard, whose Institute in Basic Life Principles is well-respected in many fundamentalist circles. His organization centers around deducing “basic principles” from various verses or passages in Scripture, many taken out of context, and turning them into rules to live by if someone wants to truly be in the “in crowd” with God.

Paul clearly says that “if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” (Galatians 5:2) and the New Testament is clear that physical external circumcision was merely a sign which has passed away in significance due to “circumcision” instead being a matter of the heart. Those of us in the Reformed tradition believe that the sign of baptism now corresponds to the sign of circumcision in the Old Testament. However, Gothard takes a near-opposite position by instead having released booklets and brochures emphasizing the need for circumcision today! He even goes beyond just suggesting medical benefits, which are disputable, but to go so far as to instruct parents in the “benefits of circumcision on the 8th day”, and to hold a circumcision ceremony! Furthermore, he says that “because this is one subject which is so strongly commanded and reinforced in Scripture, there is no question what the decision of Christian parents should be on this matter.”

If this were not enough proof of the matter that Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles treads dangerously close to the camp of the Judaizers, it should also be added that this is not the only element of the Mosaic Law which has been reworked by Gothard and his camp to become “non-optional principles” which Christians must follow. Close adherents of Gothard’s program also tend to abstain from eating “unclean” meats such as pork and hold to other similar dietary restrictions. Gothard has also published “sexual rules” for married couples — based on Leviticus — in his “Advanced Seminar Textbook”. Couples who adhere to these regulations believe that in doing so they will be bringing a blessing upon them and their offspring. Gothard refers these points from the law (which go even beyond the Law with additional rules) as “God’s hidden design” and now that Gothard himself has revealed these things, making them no longer hidden, it is the responsibility of Christians to heed and obey.

Another issue at hand is that Gothard, etc. do not simply say that the whole law must be obeyed — the moral, ceremonial, and civic laws — but rather pick and choose certain laws to impose (and even go beyond). But also in Galatians, addressing this same sort of situation, Paul wrote that “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” (Galatians 5:3) Gothard, etc. are not advocating keeping the whole law, but rather have adopted a Pharasaical position, choosing specific laws to keep as well as adding some more (and attaching blessings to them). Scripture does not contain blessings for obeying some of the law; the blessing is for wholeheartedly keeping the Law. We cannot do this, nor are we called to do this, for Christ has done so on our behalf. (See Rom. 10:4) From a Scriptural standpoint, if someone wants to accept circumcision (or parents choose circumcision for their sons for spiritual reasons) they are in effect rejecting the completed work of Christ. Remember again Galatians 5:2-4 — “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

This is not simply a matter of denominational preference or interpretation of Scripture. This is the Gospel at stake in this matter. This is a case of a leader, author, and mentor to many individuals (whether directly or indirectly) who is teaching another gospel, a gospel that is at best “Christ plus circumcision” or “Christ plus the law”, and in reality is no gospel at all. Any “gospel” that requires Christ plus something else has ceased to be gospel at all. This is a case of placing trust in the flesh rather than in God. It is a case of believing in something other than the completed work of Jesus Christ in order to be blessed by God. Friends, this isn’t even Christianity anymore. Even if central truths of the Gospel are adhered to, by re-introducing Old Covenant signs they effectively reject all of the New Covenant — including the finished work of Christ. In fact, I will go so far as to question whether those who seriously advocate righteousness through lawkeeping rather than righteousness in Christ alone, who teach circumcision as a means of earning blessings, who call unclean what God has declared clean (Acts 10:9-15) — whether they are regenerate in the first place. These may very well be “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” The Holy Spirit will not direct someone to directly violate the very words of Scripture and teach another gospel. If not from God, then where else can this be from?

Galatians 2:21 – 3:3: “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

I urge the reader to realize that this is no small matter. Anyone who would teach circumcision as a requirement for blessing, or encourage parents to choose to subject their sons to the rite of circumcision rather than the New Covenant sign of baptism, is guilty of rejecting the Gospel and replacing it with a false gospel that is no gospel at all.

Galatians 5:6-9 – “…In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”

One of the pastors in our area (and within my denomination) tells of a diagram with three circles, with an outer circle, middle circle, and inner circle. The inner circle contains the core issues of salvation. The second circle contains denominational differences, etc. — things that are still important, but are up to interpretation and are open to legitimate disagreement. The third circle contains peripheral items in the preference and individual conviction category. Problems arise when people try to move something to a different circle than it belongs — for example, educational decisions such as homeschooling from the third circle to the second circle, or interpretations such as specific mode of baptism to the first circle. In the case of true legalism (not just various lifestyle choices, but an actual return to the Law, such as the circumcision issue) it’s a serious matter of putting something new inside that first circle — the core matters of the faith. These are the types of things that consist of adding to, or taking away from, the Gospel.

Brothers and sisters who read this, if you are in a position where you are being influenced by such modern-day Judaizing, strongly consider whether this influence can be a positive thing in any way. As a little leaven leavens the whole lump, this false gospel of legalism in all likelihood permeates throughout the theology you are being exposed to and influenced by. Remember that the gospel plus anything else ceases to be the gospel at all. If you are in an environment where in addition to the gospel, other things such as circumcision, dietary laws, marital abstinence laws, etc. are being enforced on a level equal to the gospel, where you must comply in order to be regarded as a fellow believer, or where you must comply in order to be regarded as truly obedient, and you are not in a position to be a bright light in a place of spiritual darkness, then flee. There are many matters of denominational differences, lifestyle preferences, worship style preferences, church cultures, etc. that can be overcome for the sake of Christian unity and are not things worth fighting for. But the Gospel is not one of these things. It is so much at the core that if someone seeks to deny the gospel, or add to it (in effect denying its sufficiency) then one cannot stand by and permit it. Can you teach the true gospel and be used to draw people to Christ? If so then you may be placed there for a purpose. If the greater risk is that you will be influenced by the false gospel so that you begin to doubt the true Gospel, then the wise decision would be to flee the false teaching and any place, institution, church, or other group in which that false teaching is being promoted. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”

Galatians 1:6-8 – “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

Culture and Relationships

1

I want to cover a topic I haven’t previously discussed on my blog, but have been thinking about recently and decided to organize some thoughts in a post. The basic gist of what I want to cover is “dating and relationships” and comes about due to thinking about what our culture is teaching people (especially kids and teens but also adults to an extent as well) about what is normal and acceptable in relationships with one another. I haven’t approached this topic before, mainly because of the amount of division surrounding this topic — and that I am a single person attempting to write about things I may not have first-hand experience in. Nonetheless I have a few things I wanted to share, for the purpose of sorting through my own thoughts and ideas and in hopes that maybe something will be relevant or helpful to anyone else asking similar questions.

PART ONE: THE CAUSES AND SYMPTOMS
I think most would agree that our culture has some serious problems in the area of romantic relationships. For example, how easy of a task would it be to find a few mainstream, commercial movies that demonstrate a healthy view of this topic — without perversions that are presented as something positive or normal? Chances are this would be a difficult task.

But if numerous people were asked what constitutes a demonstration of a healthy view of relationships, it would be a solid bet that all or most responses would be considerably different — even among Christians. Now I am a firm believer in Christian liberty, and therefore am not going to say that one interpretation or standard is superior to another. To attempt to present principles as law and pit one view against another would in all likelihood be firmly in the camp of legalism and would be wrong. I would then be guilty of the very thing I’ve spent a significant amount of space in past years arguing against. What I will do is simply ask the reader to evaluate for himself or herself what a healthy depiction of a relationship is, and as a matter of conscience determine what is acceptable and is not. If someone has made this evaluation for themselves, it is not for another to judge. But if one is accepting of anything the culture offers for entertainment, without questioning whether it is really right or wrong, that is often a warning sign.

Why am I making a point of this? Why does it matter? Because relationships are a popular topic in our popular culture, and thus it is impossible to participate in these forms of culture without quickly coming across popular depictions. Sometimes negative things are presented in a negative light, but usually what is immoral is depicted as something positive because of it being “fun”.

For example, just to pick on a few areas…
1. Listen to certain popular hip-hop songs and you’ll get the impression that normalcy involves getting your “b*tch” or “sh*wty” and going down to a nightclub, acting loose, and participating in “lovemaking”. Is that really a normal relationship?

One of the underlying causes seems to be a loss of respect. There’s a loss of respect for men, to be certain, in this cultural snapshot — but what has really suffered here is a respect for the female gender. This is evident in the thought that a woman is simply a “thing” a guy can use for his own pleasure and the corresponding demeaning language that robs another person of dignity. Thus a lack of respect, to the point of resorting to demeaning acts that are both physical and verbal in nature, is foundational to this becoming “normal” to our culture.

2. Watch TV shows and movies intended for teenagers and you’ll get the impression that normalcy involves giggling over glances made around school lockers, and that who invites whom to dances and proms is a make-or-break decision affecting all of life ahead. Gossip and “flavor of the day” relationships reign supreme. Is that really normal in the real world?

Sometime in the last couple of generations, the teenager began to emerge as a distinct social group. No longer a transitional period between childhood and adulthood, where immature things of childhood fade away as the individual becomes more mature and prepares for the real world; now the teen and pre-teen years instead have become the real world. Teens today have a culture that wants the respect of being part of adult society without first earning that right by reaching maturity and acquiring life experiences as part of that process. There’s no need to grow and mature if a “fun” caricature of reality can be had right away, with flashier packaging than the real thing. However, adulthood involves maturity and, like it or not, high schoolers aren’t yet prepared to handle all adult decisions. In the area of romance, for example, the average high schooler just isn’t ready yet for the many facets of investing in another person. Sure, the feelings might be there. The fun experiences can be there. But there’s still a good deal of immaturity involved too. Except in rare cases, this is not building a foundation for a healthy relationship at a later time.

3. Pay attention to entertainment targeted at an adult female audience (i.e. “chick flicks?” and novels) and you’ll get the idea that men simply exist for the purpose of completing a woman’s life and if a man is failing to do that, he can simply be ditched for something more exciting, traded in for an upgrade, etc. The culture says that it’s okay if you’re not that into him, or “he’s just not that into you” — move on to the next greatest thing. Try-before-you-buy and If-you-don’t-like-it-take-it-back are the catchphrases of the day. But is that really supposed to be the norm?

4. Read magazines intended for men and you’ll get the impression that it’s both normal and acceptable to look at someone who isn’t your wife if it makes you happy. Whatever brings happiness and satisfaction is seen as being the goal. Is that really what normal is supposed to be?

Divorce rates in the church are at a high, and the rate is considered to be as high among professing Christians as among those who do not profess to be Christians. With there being virtually no difference in this area, it seems it would be a fair assessment to say the church has on a fairly large magnitude simply adopted the culture’s values in this area. Rather than influencing the culture, Christians have been influenced by the culture. Respect for one another deteriorates so that abuses happen, commitment is lost, and marriage partners begin to be viewed as parasites on the body rather than truly one body, one flesh. Discontentment lies around every corner and thoughts of fleeing to a better option are entertained as legitimate possibilities. An “entertainment” view of love takes over in place of a devoted, sacrificial, caring love, so that when the honeymoon high wears off, the temptation creeps in to move on to another relationship so as to experience that honeymoon high again. Love becomes reduced to just that high feeling, so that when the high is gone then love is said to be gone too. If this is the lie we are believing, then is it any wonder that disrespect, pleasure-seeking, and lack of commitment have become the norms in our society?

A common thread in all four examples seems to be “fun”. Our culture seems to have accepted the belief that the pursuit of happiness is supreme, and as long as the goal is to have fun, then it doesn’t matter what happens along the way. We seem to have forgotten to live for anything more than the present and however the present feels. The past’s mistakes are not learned from, and the future is disregarded as irrelevant.

Thus actually wanting a relationship of mutual involvement in each others’ lives often takes a back seat to the fun, thrills, and feelings. Outgoing, charismatic, fun, thrill-seeking people — the kind you see in movies — become hot commodities. But when the fun wears off, gone too is the desire to continue, and a breakup or divorce becomes the next step.

What has happened to the aspect of commitment and active involvement in each other? A few theories exist as a response. One is that social pressures to date at an early age (especially in high school culture) require a fast decision for the sole purpose of landing someone so as to be able to change status on Facebook and go to the prom. The other person isn’t as important as having ones own status among peers emphasized. Being in a relationship is essentially required to avoid being an outcast. Another theory is related to the high school theory but affects adults — in some situations and social circles, a single person is seen as less legitimate than a married person. A single person may feel the need to make a quick decision and enter a relationship with the intent of marriage so as to be in a better position to make advancements on the social ladder. Their union is not based on each other as much as it’s based on getting ahead of everyone else in the world. When things get tough, there may not be enough there to hold them together. Yet another theory involves the entertainment factor: books, music, and movies paint an attractive picture of a particular ideal, and decisions are made based on those ideals — ideals which often are as shallow as looks and material goods. If shallow to begin with, when the material goods are gone and the looks change, there may be little else to keep the relationship alive. These are but some of the possible reasons why, as the value of each individual has been cheapened, breakups and divorce rates remain at a high rate.

PART TWO: FINDING WHAT’S RIGHT
I think if a survey were to be taken of what people want in a relationship or a marriage, a high number of responses would include some allusion to a “fairy tale”. Certainly we could expect a significant number of such responses among the female demographic, but I think a high amount of guys would admit to the same. What is it about the “fairy tale” that appeals to so many?
Perhaps it’s the “happily ever after” component. In an age where, on average, five out of ten marriages will be dissolved, the picture of a commitment that lasts for life is a very desirable alternative, even if it may seem unreal today. In a depraved and fallen world, this picture of what’s right still appeals to many of us.

Or perhaps it’s how everything seems to fall together just right… the worst predicaments end up being just what was needed to get two people to meet each other and fall in love. I’ll get back to this later, but this is also a truth — even if we can’t see it at the time — because this also reflects God’s sovereignty. We can rest assured that his plan will be worked out because he is in control.

Another aspect common to many romantic fairy tales is the great deal of respect each individual has for each other. You don’t hear people in fairy tales talking about “clubbing with their ‘b*tch’” or “losing a [dud] guy in ten days”. Instead we see classic chivalry, courteous behavior from a deference and respect for one another (sometimes almost to an extreme where the guys are overly strong and the gals are overly needy, but still in a healthy way). This, too, appeals to us because it fills a void that we know we rarely ever see around us. Even someone who has not been regenerated and made aware of the truth still often expresses this longing for something better as a result of common grace.

All too often, however, even this classic depiction becomes tainted by depravity and deception. What appeals to us ceases to be the pictures of truth — the way it should be in the created order — and instead becomes the surface things. Looks, appeal, and actions replace commitment, sovereign order, and sacrificial devotion. Before long, these become the main things we think about in fairy tale stories. Guys often forget the examples given of being a strong man to defend, protect, and sacrifice for the lady and instead just want to get her and be with her. Ladies often forget that the prince is a prince because he is the king’s son and is reflecting the character of his father and the mission he has been sent on (think about that!) and not the prince because he’s enjoyable to look at. The looks and charm become what’s remembered and focused on, (so that it can be easy to instead fall for an impostor who has the looks but isn’t the right one) rather than the prince’s character, commitment, and dedication to doing what he needs to do as a heir and representative of his father’s kingdom.

PART THREE: WHERE TO GO FROM HERE
Where things get harder is when it comes to putting ideas, illustrations, and proven truths into actual practice. Relationships and marriage aren’t things you can create 1-2-3 step programs for. You can’t scientifically measure it and then create formulas for getting the desired results. You can’t even follow certain principles and get people to respond in a certain way (listen up and get rid of the books that supposedly help). In fact, sometimes you just have to step out, take a risk, and be willing to accept what happens — always remaining true to your convictions, keeping a level head, and seeking God’s will. A potential pitfall is when something starts to seem to be not right and due to pressure — whether social, emotional, etc. — these concerns are suppressed.

But what if concerns are suppressed and someone still proceeds into a painful situation that seems to have been a wrong choice? Is it then too late? Has God’s plan been destroyed? First, if we really believe in God’s sovereignty, we have to also agree that God’s plan can not be ruined. What we do is still known by him and while we can cause unnecessary pain to ourselves and others, we can’t foil his intentions. If we could, then who would really be the sovereign one?! So it’s hard for me to really say with certainty that a wrong choice has really caused a major, life-altering problem. Certainly, God does not will for us to sin. If we make a sinful choice, we have definitely violated God’s decree. But when we get into a painful situation and seem to be sidetracked from where we should be, it may be that this situation was still really part of God’s design because it provided a necessary experience to help the individual grow. The hurt provided a learning experience that points to the direction to something better, or perhaps to give an insight that will be used to build up another person.

It would be a lot easier if we could just protect ourselves and those around us from anything that causes any hurt. In many homeschooling and family-centric organizations, parent-orchestrated courtship (basically betrothal, and pretty close to arranged marriages) are presented as the only way to go. In a “father knows best” sort of situation, anyone unmarried (whether 18 or 38 years old) must yield to the parents‘ desires and let them approve and in some cases even establish the relationship; where without approval it can’t happen at all. How do I know this? I used to believe it and live surrounded by it. One of the main reasons is to protect others from making the same mistakes and experiencing the same things they themselves have. We often think that if we’ve had something unpleasant happen, we have learned from it and then can prevent others from doing the same thing so that they don’t go through it at all. But as noble as it sounds — and while I detest the legalistic rules that comes from these viewpoints and the completely unnatural, contrived and regulated approach to relationships that these groups present — I can see where they’re coming from, and the intent really is for a good reason. The intent doesn’t justify the means or the end, but we can still see where it comes from. When it does really get out of hand and the intent as well isn’t all that noble is when it’s orchestrated simply as a means of control — not for protection — such as for executing a “vision-casted” two hundred year plan, or a means of trying to control what one’s children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. will accomplish in order to see one’s own goals come true. However, I’ll avoid going further into criticism of this as it would distract from the intent of this particular post.

Back on the main topic, it’s only by trusting in God’s will — that unpleasant things are part of a better plan and something greater that hasn’t yet been made clear — that we can still be content even in disappointment. His plan didn’t just get thwarted by some wrong choice or dumb decision. Our goal did, but if it wasn’t the right goal it needed to be terminated anyway.

Finally, what are some things we can do in order to remain focused on the truth in the face of the distortion, deception, and perversion our culture throws at us?

The first thing I would suggest to the reader is to ensure you know what you believe as far as right and wrong, make sure that it is a sound view in line with the Bible, and do not give in to letting your guard down. When something is wrong, don’t continue even if all the social pressure around you is screaming in your ear to give in. The saying is true that “what is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular.”

Second, if you are looking for a long-term committed relationship — a good goal, as an intention of something short-term has already resulted in commitment being thrown to the wind — think through ramifications and what things are requirements for the person you are considering a relationship with. A few years ago, singer-songwriter Derek Webb would often sing the song “Dance”, which he had written earlier during his time with Caedmon’s Call. The song was written about his grandmother, who at past 90 years old had been proposed to by a good friend of hers who was a resident in the same nursing home. However, she was quick to say she turned him down right away… because he couldn’t dance! Derek Webb would go on to explain at the concerts that “for all you young ladies out there”, this was a good reason to have a list of non-optionals and turn away any guy that didn’t meet the list! Now I’d add a couple things to this humorous illustration. First, it’s not just for women but applies to guys as well. Second, dancing probably isn’t really a good non-optional unless dancing is central to your calling so that having a partner who couldn’t dance would really be too much of a point of contention. But to be serious about this, it really is good advice. Some thoughts to consider…

1. Know your calling! If you are called to do something or be something, and another person simply does not share that same value (or is even opposed to it), there’s a good chance this relationship would be a bad idea. Though it’s certainly possible that God will bring the other person around so they share the same goal, it’s at least a cause for concern. The difference in goals can at minimum become a point of contention, and potentially become so great that you might be tempted to throw aside the goal for the sake of peace and unity. For example, if you are called to serve people, then someone who doesn’t particularly like people isn’t a good fit. If you’re passionate about missions, then someone who doesn’t appreciate any culture but his or her own isn’t a good fit.

2. Decide which things you simply cannot compromise without violating your conscience and beliefs. For Christians, theology can and should be a big one. If you aren’t on the same page in what you believe, what is going to happen when you must make a decision based on what you believe the Bible teaches? For example, when you have kids, what happens if you are in disagreement on whether to baptize your children into the covenant fellowship or have them remain as an outsider until they have their own profession of faith? Denominational differences — ways people interpret Scripture — really can be a bigger deal than most will readily admit.

3. See the whole person. Usually when people talk about non-optional goals for a relationship, it focuses on things like charisma, appeal, looks, common interests, etc. But what about character? Someone who you can have great discussions with, enjoy being around, etc. but has no sense of commitment so might leave (emotionally or actually) as soon as someone more exciting becomes available simply isn’t a good fit. You can certainly remain friends, but I would be extremely cautious about ever pursuing a deeper relationship with that person unless they undergo some serious changes. And unless that other person does undergo some serious changes, they may never want to even be around you again — even just to be friends — because of the entertainment-values-based thrill-seeking nature. (Little known fact: I know this from experience.) Or someone who is “good on the eyes” might meet everything on an “externals checklist” (something I really don’t recommend) but actually share few common interests, have different goals, and simply not be compatible. So to want a relationship with someone just based on their physical appearance really is to also invite disaster. To shun someone just because they don’t match up in the appearance department is also not right. This deception may be one of the biggest lies of our culture that we unknowingly believe and use as a filter. So much for the Hollywood ideal!

At the same time, realize that God isn’t done working on any of us — and in time, flaws that are roadblocks now may be things of the past later on.

Third, consider which influences may be detrimental due to unwholesome ideas being presented as the right thing. Forms of entertainment which cause unrealistic or unhealthy expectations, stir up feelings of discontent, make light of inappropriate behavior, etc. should be avoided. Some general advice that is “80% right 70% of the time for 60% of the population” (just kidding; I think it really is a good thing to keep in mind) is to engage culture when truth is present or when your involvement can be used to change the culture for good. Avoid involvement with the culture in areas where you can make no difference but it can change you. This will vary for each person, but if you being to be shaped by it rather than shaping it yourself, it may become a serious problem.

Fourth and finally, remember that no amount of scientific modeling, prescribing, or planning will guarantee a particular result. You can’t put God in a box, and neither can you try to make him direct in a certain way. His leading may be a huge surprise, but when he is ready to reveal it, he will do so. Then you can look back at the past and see how all the different twists and turns and roadblocks actually did serve a purpose and weren’t for no reason at all. Then give God the glory for what he has done.

Excesses On Both Sides

2

It’s been a while — again — since I’ve blogged. Not a lot of significant events to blog about; life goes on. Will be going on vacation with the family in a few days, from this Thursday to next Tuesday… hopefully I’ll have lots of pictures to upload over the weekend and after returning.

I’m trying to convince myself to loosen up and post more often, even if it means there’s nothing particularly profound to say. Not that I advocate mindless posting, and won’t be using this blog space for that, but at the same time there’s nothing wrong with a more conversational or “status update” sort of post every now and then. So with that in mind I hope to begin a more frequent cycle of posting.

Tonight, though, I’m going to still have to get into weighty matters that may end up only being read all the way to the end by one person (me, when proofreading). Nevertheless, I do have something on my mind that’s not really formulated into a precise, logically-organized post, but is still something I want to comment on. I’ve written numerous posts on the topic of freedom, especially in contrast to legalistic fundamentalism; this is a topic I still stand by and think is important to promote. At the same time, I’ve seen a lot of former fundamentalists who experience freedom and then “go too far”, leaving legalism to go smack-dab into licentiousness. This does not by any mean say that the fundamentalists are right and the rules are necessary, but also does not excuse living loose just because one is freed from bondage, as all that has really happened is one has traded bondage to rules for bondage to sin. One isn’t better than the other, and both are wrong.

Yet it seems our natural response to a wrong is to go too far the other way. American evangelical legalism and its rules largely stem from a response to the perceived demise of the culture due to so-called vices such as alcohol, gambling, sexual promiscuity, etc. in the latter part of the 19th century. So the “protective” move was to ban drinking (Prohibition in the early 20th century), discourage playing cards (even with no money on the line just due to the so-called “appearance”), oppose dancing, etc. Of course, history has shown that these new “rules” weren’t all that effective, and for many people adherence to these rules became the measuring stick of who’s living right and who’s living wrong. (Those and probably hundreds of other rules we made for each other so as to be able to rise above the rest by our painstaking law-keeping.)

More recently, as teaching on free grace continues to make a welcome resurgence in churches, people have realized the futility of painstaking law-keeping as a means of earning favor and have also come to appreciate things that are not wrong in themselves if used rightly. They realize that they have been set free from earning favor by keeping laws we’ve made for each other, and are free to live in a manner pleasing to God — but freely because sins are forgiven and God isn’t angry with them!

But there are some who hear that their sins are forgiven and then wrongly assume that it means that they can go do whatever they want and it’s okay because the sins they’re committing are already covered. This is blatantly wrong, but again, returning to painstaking rule-keeping is not the solution but rather wrong as well. It could be said, though, that the one who abuses grace in this way does not truly understand what it means to be set free and thus is still in bondage to sin.

The key is balance. That’s something foreign to us… we dislike rulekeeping, so we then approve sin. We get convicted of sin, and then we go back to rules to try to get right with God (and point out everyone else’s sins too). We show disgust at excessive greed in business, and then assume that socialism (i.e. greed in the form of centralized power grabs) will somehow be the right alternative. (Then eventually we’ll get sick of socialism and decide anarchy is a better option.) We realize that there are good elements of the culture which we can appreciate and redeem — so we don’t have to oppose all music and movies made after a certain year… and then go far beyond appreciating the good in culture to appreciating and loving its dirty underbelly as well, and not trying to influence it because we like it just the way it is. We come to the understanding that beer and wine are not prohibited by Scripture and rather are to be appreciated as good things in moderation… and then end up throwing off restraint and abusing a good thing to the point of getting sick. We rightly oppose false doctrine… and then get so cynical and postmodern we wrongly throw off all doctrine whatsoever. When both extremes are wrong, we need to look for what’s right when surrounded by two wrongs… in other words, balance.

But while a “middle of the road” position is healthy when it’s a right choice in the middle of two wrong extremes, we also have to be aware of cases where the “middle of the road” position is not necessarily right. If there’s something that’s clearly right and something that’s clearly wrong, the middle position ends up being not entirely wrong, but still wrong in that it’s not right. There are some issues where we say we’re playing it safe by taking a “middle of the road” position but in reality are simply compromising on a matter of right and wrong. Reasons for this vary, whether it’s uncertainty, a desire to not offend anyone, bad memories of black-and-white legalistic fundamentalism… but nonetheless, a compromise between right and wrong still remains wrong. Furthermore, it seems that often someone who stands in the “middle of the road” when a moral issue is at stake really ends up either standing for nothing at all, or else lending silent approval to the wrong.

So there’s a time when “middle of the road” moderation is the right choice (when it’s in between two extremes), but there’s also a time when it’s wrong (when it’s a compromise away from a clear right, but unpopular, choice). The solution to knowing isn’t any ten-step no-fail recipe (notice how there’s really no seven-step programs to anything in true Christianity?) but rather something that we must find, guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

That’s all for tonight. I realize that’s probably longer than anyone wanted to read, but rest assured not every post will be this long. This just seemed like something that needed to get said.
Until next time… jn

Bill Gothard’s Response to Michael Pearl

0

A few months ago I praised Michael Pearl’s article on “Cloistered Homeschool Syndrome” as a step in the right direction by someone who’s otherwise been associated with a very legalistic branch of the homeschooling community. Though he still remains a dispensationalist and a Pelagian, his statements criticizing the failure of the patriarchal movement were very much welcome.

Bill Gothard, another name associated with the legalistic branch of the homeschooling community, responded to the article — which has been posted here on Michael Pearl’s website. His response, unfortunately, seems to do damage to the steps in the right direction by Michael Pearl, as Gothard re-emphasizes some of the most legalistic and reprehensible aspects of this theology and worldview.

My time this evening is limited so a detailed critique of the flaws in Gothard’s hermeneutic is beyond the scope of this post, but I will highlight a few things in passing. All of the bulleted items are direct quotations from Gothard’s response.

  • we explain that a man is to leave his father and mother when he gets married and is no longer under their authority.
I take issue with this for a number of reasons, with the primary being that the notion that a “child” must live at home, under authority, until marriage is unscriptural. Second that I am single and living alone also means that under Gothard’s system, I am living in sin.
  • We have found that by helping dads transform these painful memories by applying the commands of Christ, they are able to experience…
Perhaps instead of trying to live by a new law, a better way would be to cast one’s cares upon Christ and receive grace… looking to Christ and not to one’s own ability.
  • Under the Mosaic law, the nation of Israel was not to have social interaction with other nations, and everything in their society was built around the family.
Seriously?
  • This is not to take away from the need for sons and daughters to honor and obey their parents, especially in regard to standards and choice of a marriage partner…
I AGREE that honor of one’s parents is something grossly lacking in modern culture. But this notion of following lifestyle standards, or participating in courtship a.k.a. arranged marriage, is not a sound interpretation of Scripture. Such recommendations may be healthy, but are opinion and preference, not requirements.
  • Why are young people who have been trained up in a Godly home and kept from the corrupting influences of the world suddenly deciding to reject their upbringing and adopt the standards and ways of the world?
An excellent question because I agree this is a problem. But, within the Gothardite camp, what is defined as “corrupting influences of the world” goes far beyond Biblical law to also include man-made laws. Thus, with regard to this statement, perhaps it’s because the “young people” saw the shallowness of law-keeping without grace, or trying to earn the blessing of God under our own ability by doing everything right and hoping it’s good enough?

I have seen cases of young adults throwing out everything pertaining to Christianity due to the negative association of Christianity with Gothardism. This is certainly a wrong response, and an immature response, but at the same time I can understand why it does happen if the only “Christianity” someone gets is shallow law-keeping and not the rich, deep love and grace of God.
  • There is a great need for fathers to protect their daughters, especially from going out of the home for education or jobs that would influence them to reject what they have learned from Scripture.
In other words, within Gothardism it’s “Scriptural” that daughters not go to college or get a job. Doing so is seen as a rejection of Scripture. Hmm, I guess even some women in the Bible are condemned by this?? This could just as easily be a statement made within Sharia law, replacing “Scripture” with “the Quran”.
  • Bill Gothard, PhD
For years Gothard himself spoke out against “worldly credentials” — lecturing parents to not permit their children to attend college due to such credentials being unprofitable. Guess if you make the rules, you’re not obligated to keep them yourself.
——-
As I alluded to above, I actually agree with some of Gothard’s diagnoses of the problems in our culture and families, but disagree strongly with his prescription. The Gospel is the only cure… trying to do better under our power is not. Baptized humanism is still humanism. Pelagianism is still Pelagianism. A pile of skubala is still a pile of skubala.
I really do agree with some of the statements that there are some things gravely wrong with our culture, even within so-called Christian culture. Apathy and license run rampant, divorce rates are basically the same within and outside the church, Christian teens are growing into adulthood lacking a foundational Biblical worldview… I agree these are real concerns. But the solution Gothard and others in the legalistic homeschool community advocate are not the real solutions. I’d like to spend some time in the near future looking at what some possible solutions may be, but for now, I stand by the statement that this isn’t the solution but rather another harm.
Comments are disabled for this post.
Go to Top