A New Kind of Legalism? [Archive]

Michael B. Ross

24th June 2007, 12:24 PM (12:24)

Barbara, I think you have a great insight. I am fascinated by it. Can you develop it more? I would be interested.

I recently told someone that I felt legalism was still alive and well, but the rules have changed. You have re-opened the idea for me.

As I think more about it, we would need to make a distinction between doing things in an effective way and insisting God's approval is earned by a certain lifestyle. I do, however, sometimes feel I am encountering the ole legalism attitude, but not particularly in worship style preferences. Maybe others will help us with this.

I was thinking about something this morning as I was listening to praise music on the radio.....

We have come through the era of legalism of where we cannot go, what we cannot do and how we cannot dress. But, I am wondering-just wondering-if we are not developing a new kind of legalism.

We spend a lot of time discussing:
1. What we should sing.
2. How we should sing it.
3. What words to use...."We" or "I."
4. What belongs in our sanctuaries and what does not.

In the past I have seen the atttitude "if we are truly holiness people we should...." attributed to the old legalism, but are we also expressing the same attitude if we believe we can only be "God's true church of the 21st Centrury" if we worship a certain way?

Just thinking.......

Barb

Hans Deventer

24th June 2007, 12:42 PM (12:42)

In the past I have seen the atttitude "if we are truly holiness people we should...." attributed to the old legalism, but are we also expressing the same attitude if we believe we can only be "God's true church of the 21st Centrury" if we worship a certain way?

If it is, I'd still rather be defined by what we do, than by what we don't do.

Hans Deventer

24th June 2007, 12:49 PM (12:49)

I prefer to use a hymnal because the pictures and words up on the screen often blend to the point I can not see to read them.

You may need glasses then, brother.

Of course, the congregation must always stand the whole time the song service is in progress but I like sitting.

In our church, we are free to sit or stand as we please, and I full well intend to keep it that way if I can help it! (How's that for being conservative? :basic03)

Has organ music been outlawed in the latest Manual?

I don't recall a resolution to that effect, but since "my" resolution, you can now check for yourself at http://media.premierstudios.com/nazarene/docs/Manual2005_09.pdf

I really miss the glorious uplifting sounds of a well played organ.

Today we had drums, bass, flute, trumpet, electric guitar and acoustic guitar. They played very well, it was the highlight of the service for me.

But this week, they are also repairing our pipe organ and though we don't use it every Sunday, there are songs that simply sound the best when accompanied by a good pipe organ. Thankfully, one of our church members is a organ/piano player, educated in music at college level. We actually have several very well musically educated people, they are a great blessing.

Gina Stevenson

24th June 2007, 01:42 PM (13:42)

'Guess I forgot to click on Barb's, as I tho't of, so I'll just comment here: Rather shows how that just might be a part of the human condition ... finding it easier to "follow distinct rules" than to have to figure things out on one's own where no specifics are laid out. We humans tend to like "easy" as opposed to "having to figure things out," perhaps.

In our church, we are free to sit or stand as we please, and I full well intend to keep it that way if I can help it! (How's that for being conservative? :basic03)

Hans, sometimes if others stand, those sitting would be too low to then see a screen, unless it's a huge one, hung way up high! 'Just tossing it out for tho't, since not all screens are hung uniformly. ;)

Hans Deventer

24th June 2007, 03:10 PM (15:10)

Hans, sometimes if others stand, those sitting would be too low to then see a screen, unless it's a huge one, hung way up high!

I know. Ours is hung up high and there are two, so if you can't see one, you probably can see the other.

Mike McVey

24th June 2007, 03:29 PM (15:29)

But, I am wondering-just wondering-if we are not developing a new kind of legalism.

We spend a lot of time discussing:
1. What we should sing.
2. How we should sing it.
3. What words to use...."We" or "I."
4. What belongs in our sanctuaries and what does not.

In the past I have seen the atttitude "if we are truly holiness people we should...." attributed to the old legalism, but are we also expressing the same attitude if we believe we can only be "God's true church of the 21st Centrury" if we worship a certain way?

Just thinking.......

Barb

Barb, keep thinking. Them good thoughts. I like this question. It's a good check for me. Since I am one that gave a lot of ideas concerning what we sing, I felt I should respond.

I'm not sure if anyone is saying or has said there is only one way to worship in the 21st Century. But I do have to admit that there are some songs that do not capture the spirit of worship. This could be seen as legalistic, but I'm not sure Oops, I Did it Again or The Thong Song capture the spirit or intent of worship. Most would respond "of course not". But every time we sing a song by Charles Wesley, we are singing to a bar tune. Yet few of us realize that John Wesley was concerned on how we worship; Dietrich Bonhoeffer was concerned on how we worship; St. Francis was concerned on how we worship... why did they care so much?

I think your comment is astute concerning worship can be a form of legalism, but by worshiping at all we are not identifying ourself not as worshipers, but identifying the one to whom we worship. And according to at least one of the definitions of legalism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legalism), I don't believe anyone is saying that how you worship is going to gain you salvation.

But we do have to be careful if we say it doesn't matter how we worship. I completely believe that we are everything that we have done and everything that has been done to us. The problem with most music used for worship is not the music but the culture we live. We live in a radically individualistic consumeristic civilization in both Europe and North America. When we do sing "I" all the time, we start individualizing and privatizing the message where people can say that all their problems are between them and Jesus. This is simply not Christian. Christianity is not a private faith. It is a confessional faith that is to be participated in communally. We need the whole body of Christ to be able to recover the image of Christ stamped on our lives. We have the church to remind us who we are in grace. It is for reasons like this that we do not believe that individuals should baptize themselves or serve themselves Eucharist (communion). Both are seen as a means of grace within the workings of community.

In the same way, it makes a difference what we sing, how we sing it, and what is in the area of worship when we sing it. Currently our church is going through a Bible Study in Exodus. The thing I love so much about Exodus 25-30 is the gobs and gobs of requirements for the Tabernacle. There are rules for worship, per se. I remember hearing that John Wesley told all of his preachers to read the sermons he prepared for them and not stray even a letter. It matters how we worship. Worship forms us--as well as Bible-study, devotions, prayer, Eucharist, baptism, etc.--into certain kinds of people. If we lived in 18th Century England, it would be important to emphasize the individuality of our faith. In 21st Century North America/Europe, it is important to emphasize the communality (not commonality, but community) of our faith. "I" and "me" are the way that advertisers get us to buy their products. Is Christianity just a product to be advertised? I surely hope it is something more than that.

I hope this at least clears up some of why I gave guidelines for worship.

Mike McVey

24th June 2007, 03:31 PM (15:31)

Barb Bouldrey

24th June 2007, 05:12 PM (17:12)

I haven't had time to really give this a lot of thought since the thought popped into my mind this morning.

You will notice I did not state which side of each issue I favored in my list.

I think that the church who refuses to even try to change the worship format can be legalistic in their music. Either way. Whenever we present the attitude that, "this is the way we are going to do, because TRUE worshipers do it this way," I think we are being legalistic. And that can be a problem with traditional OR comtemporary.

When I think of the years of severe legalism I think of bondage. If we are doing anything just out of tradition or because everyone else is doing it, I feel as if I am being put into a mold...and that is bondage.

We can become in bondage because of tradition or because of trends.

Whenever we think our way is the only way to do something in worship or in the church, we become legalistic because we expect others to do it our way.

I guess I see this more as a personal issue than a congregational issue.

The best illustration that comes to my mind is the time our teens were in charge of the morning worship service and our youth pastor preached. It was their first service with their new youth pastor. We all knew it was a youth service so we expected youth music that was probably unfamiliar to us, but that was okay because we knew it was a youth service.

The service went well, but the congregation struggled with the music. We had not music to read, no melody to follow and teens singing as a praise team that had soft voices....so we had a hard time singing along.

As soon as the music started, played by their keyboard pianist and guitarists who were just playing the chords, all the teens stood up to sing. No adults did.

A couple of teens were disappointed in the response of the adults. Our youth pastor said, "I told the teens we were just going to have to teach these adults how to worship."

Besides making me angry with the youth pastor for saying that, that to me is an example of new legalism. Trying to force me into their mold.

That is a rare example, I know.

Maybe some of it comes from being a pastor's wife in 6 different churches and seeing what mold a church tries to put me in. I remember the pastorate where the older ladies gave me disgusted looks every time I got my hair cut...but I did it anyway.

Whenever we "make a big deal" out of something, until we obsess about it or demand it, we are edging on legalism.

Church bosses who want to control are another example of bondage in a church.

Maybe legalism and bondage are not always synonymous..except in my mind.

Barb

John Kennedy

24th June 2007, 05:23 PM (17:23)

Michael -

"....every time we sing a song by Charles Wesley, we are singing to a bar tune...". I think I understand the point you are trying to make - I even agree with some of it. However, I think a little more checking of facts would've been helpful.

First of all, Wesley, as with the overwhelming number of hymn authors of his day, and, to some extent, of ours, played no part in the tune/s to which their words would be sung.

The tune used, is, in the vast majority of instances, determined by the meter (the number of syllables in a given phrase). Thus the hymn, "Holy, holy, holy!" has an 'll.12.12.10' meter as a count of the syllable in the phrases will reveal. (I confirmed this info by checking p. 763 of SING TO THE LORD, presumably the latest Nazarene hymnal. It is sadly ironic that Lillenas, for the church, produced a first-class, comprehensive hymnal at about the same time that a lot of churches decided to stop using one. I know some of you find this cause for celebration - others among you may not be quite that ecstatic.)

In SING TO THE LORD, as in most standard hymnals, information about the author, tune composer, and the tune name is given along with the hymn or song. Interestingly enough, in light of a discussion in another thread about Scriptural authority, the tune to which "Holy, holy, holy!' is sung is 'Nicaea' referring to the church council from whence came the Nicene Creed.

I've heard the 'all hymn tunes were once bar songs' bit, along with Luther's reported lamenting question, "Why should the devil have all the good tunes?"
for years. Most of the time they were advanced as arguments in favor of this, that, or the other musical abomination someone was attempting to legitimize.

Most of the standard hymn tunes were written, or adapted, by church organists and while some of the musical phrases may have had some resemblance to a tune purportedly sung in a bar, so far I have yet to see any citation of what specific song it was.

Having said all the above, I find my self in considerable agreement with the point both you and Barbara were making. I grew up in the church when a legalistic point of view was all to prevalent and I've had the misfortune of experiencing somewhat the same reproving and condemnatory tone when I declined to jump on the latest, trendiest 'worship bandwagon'.

I found the recent thread about church attire to be very revealing (the tone of the discussion, not the clothes). Many seemed, in the name of outreach, to be very concerned that they dress casually enough.

I thought it was a hoot. I attend a church that is, hands down, far more 'formal' than 99.9% of the churches most Naznetters attend. Clergy, worship leaders, and choir are always robed. But looking out over the congregation I notice that the two big determinants of formality/informality of dress are generation and the weather. If you were to poll the congregation you would find it to be a big, 'yawner' of a non-issue.

John Kennedy

24th June 2007, 05:40 PM (17:40)

I love organ music. Problem is that there aren't a lot of organists around here that would do it for free. For that matter, there aren't a lot of pianists around here that would do it for free.

Nor should they have to. I have had the good fortune of working with skilled musicians who were willing to donate their talent. I have also had the good fortune of working with musicians who were paid. I didn't esteem either one over the other.

If the church is able to pay even a nominal stipend to instrumentalists, it should. Proficiency as an organist or pianist represents long years of hard work. It represents a dedicated willingness to take a God-given talent and cultivate it. If churches want to encourage their musically gifted young people to use their gifts for God's glory, they need to show their appreciation.

My own church is in the process of losing an excellent organist and hiring a replacement. Organists, especially, are an increasingly 'endangered species'. We will have to compnesate according to skill - and we will consider it worth it.

One of the things that churches rushing headlong into this, that, or the other, musical trend need to consider is that they may well have up and coming musicians who simply don't find that kind of music to their taste and who will seek to serve musically in other types of musical settings. And they will find a place.

Barbara Moulton

24th June 2007, 06:07 PM (18:07)

The problem with most music used for worship is not the music but the culture we live. We live in a radically individualistic consumeristic civilization in both Europe and North America. When we do sing "I" all the time, we start individualizing and privatizing the message where people can say that all their problems are between them and Jesus.... In 21st Century North America/Europe, it is important to emphasize the communality (not commonality, but community) of our faith. "I" and "me" are the way that advertisers get us to buy their products. Is Christianity just a product to be advertised? I surely hope it is something more than that.

"I" songs have been around the church for a long, long time. Just go to www.cyberhymnal.org and look at the list of titles starting with "I". There are a lot of older hymns. And the list doesn't even touch the "me" songs which just don't happen to begin with "I".

The number one requested hymn when I go to nursing homes is "I Come to the Garden Alone". Seniors love their "me" songs just as much as those of the late 20th and early 21st century.

As an aside, the chorus that I really dislike is the one that says, "So forget about yourself and concentrate on Him". Forget about myself? If I forget about who I am then what am I bringing to worship?

When Isaiah was confronted with a vision of God, the first words that came out of his mouth were not about God. They were "I" words. He was overwhelmed with his own sense of unworthiness and his need of God. Woe is ME for I am undone. What is worship if not the response of the "I" that is me to the one true God? And how do I express my response without using "I" language?

Anyway...to the topic at hand (legalism):

I believe that the label "legalism" is used too quickly.

I compare it to the secular world. We often label any observation about the possible offensiveness of certain language or behaviour as "political correctness". Someone trying to be sensitive to the feelings of a minority group is dismissed. So some very good observations are often not given the consideration they deserve.

Those of my generation have tended to look back on how we were raised and label it as "legalistic". I am not sure this is fair. O.K. so we couldn't play ball on Sunday or go to movies. But my mother certainly never taught me that God was more interested in my adherence to these rules then He was in the condition of my heart and she never taught me that my salvation depended on keeping those rules. She was simply raised to believe that God was pleased when we honoured Him in the details of our lives. Her details differed then my details and she had the power to enforce hers while I lived at home :) But was that legalism?

Discussions about various forms of worship..even strongly held views about worship formats are not a form of legalism, unless we move into condemnation.

So no...I don't think we are developing a new form of legalism. I do think we are dealing with an age old problem of how to treat those who differ from us with grace. We need to listen to concerns with grace.

I attended a church a few Sundays ago which had a far better music team then the one at my church. And they used Power Point like we do. But they used pink words on a dark purple background. While I could make out the words it was a struggle. Now, if I attended that church and made a comment about this, that wouldn't make me a legalist. But depending on HOW I expressed my concerns, I could be lacking in grace.

Some of this isn't even a spiritual issue. It's simply the way humans are. Many of us get into a way of doing things that "fits" who we are. We think that if we are asked to change then the "who we are" isn't being valued.

So we do need to treat those who struggle with change in the church with grace. And we need to treat those who want to change with grace.

And unless either of those people tell me that I am not right with God if I don't see things their way, then they aren't legalists.

This post has gone on too long. I don't feel like I have adequately communiated what I want to communicate but I'll leave it anyways :)

Brad Mercer

24th June 2007, 06:28 PM (18:28)

I prefer to use a hymnal because the pictures and words up on the screen often blend to the point I can not see to read them. Of course, the congregation must always stand the whole time the song service is in progress but I like sitting. Has organ music been outlawed in the latest Manual? I really miss the glorious uplifting sounds of a well played organ.

At NewStart-Frisco, we deliberately experimented with font, typeface and colors on our slides until we came up with something that everyone could read clearly, and that wasn't garish or off-putting to anyone. It took a while, but we got there and stuck with it.

We also for the most part avoid telling people when to sit or stand. We'll have at least one song where pretty much everyone will stand because it just feels like that kind of song, but we avoid requiring people to stand for long periods.

Brad

Mike McVey

24th June 2007, 06:43 PM (18:43)

Nor should they have to. I have had the good fortune of working with skilled musicians who were willing to donate their talent. I have also had the good fortune of working with musicians who were paid. I didn't esteem either one over the other.

If the church is able to pay even a nominal stipend to instrumentalists, it should. Proficiency as an organist or pianist represents long years of hard work. It represents a dedicated willingness to take a God-given talent and cultivate it. If churches want to encourage their musically gifted young people to use their gifts for God's glory, they need to show their appreciation.

My own church is in the process of losing an excellent organist and hiring a replacement. Organists, especially, are an increasingly 'endangered species'. We will have to compnesate according to skill - and we will consider it worth it.

One of the things that churches rushing headlong into this, that, or the other, musical trend need to consider is that they may well have up and coming musicians who simply don't find that kind of music to their taste and who will seek to serve musically in other types of musical settings. And they will find a place.

Sorry, I was too subtle in my point. The church I am at currently does not have money -- at all.

Mike McVey

24th June 2007, 06:53 PM (18:53)

"I" songs have been around the church for a long, long time. Just go to www.cyberhymnal.org and look at the list of titles starting with "I". There are a lot of older hymns. And the list doesn't even touch the "me" songs which just don't happen to begin with "I".

The number one requested hymn when I go to nursing homes is "I Come to the Garden Alone". Seniors love their "me" songs just as much as those of the late 20th and early 21st century.

My point is not that songs are just now starting to say "I". My point is that a vast majority of the 20th/21st century North America/Europe struggles the radical individualistic consumeristic culture where it is about "me".

As an aside, the chorus that I really dislike is the one that says, "So forget about yourself and concentrate on Him". Forget about myself? If I forget about who I am then what am I bringing to worship?

I agree, maybe it would have been better to sing, "Deny yourself and follow Him"? Doesn't really follow the tune very well, though, does it? :rolleyes:

Jim Franklin

24th June 2007, 07:07 PM (19:07)

Barbara Moulton

24th June 2007, 07:50 PM (19:50)

Hans, I have worn glasses since my teens then switched to contacts at 31 and for the last 20 yers wear both contacts and glasses and at my last check I was seeing better than I had ever seen before. I do stay seated even if everyone else is standing. I just long to hear the uplifting strains of an organ.

I have noticed that some churches have very busy backgrounds and, as I implied in my earlier posts, colour can make a big difference.

I use a plain light background for all my slides and nobody has ever complained that they couldn't see the words.

Dennis M. Scott

24th June 2007, 08:54 PM (20:54)

We have come through the era of legalism of where we cannot go, what we cannot do and how we cannot dress. But, I am wondering-just wondering-if we are not developing a new kind of legalism.

In the past I have seen the atttitude "if we are truly holiness people we should...." attributed to the old legalism, but are we also expressing the same attitude if we believe we can only be "God's true church of the 21st Centrury" if we worship a certain way?

Just thinking.......

Barb

While not disagreeing with the direction this thread has gone, it occurred to me that perhaps it gives some insight as to how a previous generation that got to where "we" think was quite legalistic. It might be that it isn't that difficult to get to such a place, all with good intensions. Frankly, the music thing is maybe a pretty good example of how something non essential might become fundamental. Historic perspective frequently gives insight.

Just musing . . .

Hans Deventer

25th June 2007, 12:40 AM (00:40)

Hans, I have worn glasses since my teens then switched to contacts at 31 and for the last 20 yers wear both contacts and glasses and at my last check I was seeing better than I had ever seen before.

Jim, I was joking. I presumed your glasses were OK so there's apparently something wrong with the slides. It doesn't have to be that way.

Cindi Hammons

25th June 2007, 09:07 AM (09:07)

I was thinking about something this morning as I was listening to praise music on the radio.....

We have come through the era of legalism of where we cannot go, what we cannot do and how we cannot dress. But, I am wondering-just wondering-if we are not developing a new kind of legalism.

We spend a lot of time discussing:
1. What we should sing.
2. How we should sing it.
3. What words to use...."We" or "I."
4. What belongs in our sanctuaries and what does not.

In the past I have seen the atttitude "if we are truly holiness people we should...." attributed to the old legalism, but are we also expressing the same attitude if we believe we can only be "God's true church of the 21st Centrury" if we worship a certain way?

Just thinking.......

Barb

I understand what you are saying, but I don't entirely agree with you. I do think that current trend proponents can be judgemental or highly opinionated, but I'm not so sure about being legalists.

I have never seen a church with a sign that says, "To worship here, you must wear shorts/slacks." But I have seen a sign in a church telling women they are not permitted to wear slacks and accusing them of immodesty. I'm serious! In a church foyer before entering the sanctuary!

I think the difference is that we were told that we must or must not...(fill in the blank)...or else we were going to hell. There is a difference in trying to find a new way to do things than telling others they will go to hell if they do not do things "our" way. I mean, I know of a lady who absolutely struggled with cutting off her "pentecostal" hair-do because she thought she would be sinning if she did this. It was a traumatic thing for her because she was told she was sinning if she did so. Some may think that people are not with the times if they don't participate in or support new forms of worship, but I don't see them being told they will go to hell if they don't participate!

I know you have been thinking about the flag issue. I see the flag issue as a personal congregation issue. If the congregation wants them...ok. If they don't...then take them out. As you saw in the other thread, I don't really like them in a church. HOWEVER, it would be legalistic of me if I judged others and their ability to be saved over the flag issue.

Do you see what I am trying to say? I'm certainly NOT saying that there is NO legalism in modern worship...I just don't think it is a new form of legalism.

Ryan Scott

25th June 2007, 10:43 AM (10:43)

It seems a lot of the comments so far (many of them worship related) don't have so much to do with modern/traditional dialogues but with manipulative worship practice. When the leader says "let's stand and sing together" she is dictating your response to God in a time of worship. If a congregation makes someone feel uncomfortable wearing shorts or a suit, that is hindering the freedom of people to worship God.

I think we need to offer an attitude of freedom in worship. People need to feel free to respond to God in the ways that make sense them, in the ways God is calling them to respond. That might be standing or sitting or singing or silence or whistling off-key.

We ask a lot of questions of lyrics and service order and such things because we want to be clear about the intentional and unintentional messages that are portrayed in the worship setting. The goal of worship is for God's people to come and worship God. Obviously not every setting makes sense for everyone, but we should do out best to allow God to be present and not our preferences.

Jim Monck

25th June 2007, 01:38 PM (13:38)

Susan Unger

2nd January 2009, 01:32 AM (01:32)

I think that the church who refuses to even try to change the worship format can be legalistic in their music. Either way. Whenever we present the attitude that, "this is the way we are going to do, because TRUE worshipers do it this way," I think we are being legalistic. And that can be a problem with traditional OR comtemporary.

When I think of the years of severe legalism I think of bondage. If we are doing anything just out of tradition or because everyone else is doing it, I feel as if I am being put into a mold...and that is bondage.

We can become in bondage because of tradition or because of trends.

Whenever we think our way is the only way to do something in worship or in the church, we become legalistic because we expect others to do it our way.

...

Whenever we "make a big deal" out of something, until we obsess about it or demand it, we are edging on legalism.

Church bosses who want to control are another example of bondage in a church.

Maybe legalism and bondage are not always synonymous..except in my mind.

Barb

I was hanging out with some Fundie Indie Baptist friends one time - one in particular kept harping about those Wesleyans and their legalism....and then in the next breath he'd complain about the "sinfulness" of his mother working or the 'sinfulness' of a woman getting her hair cut. That was when I realized that legalism is a relative thing...and no group or denomination has a corner on this market. gag gag gag...

This past year I have been healed of many things but a big thing is legalism. This healing such that I can now discern the slightest hint of legalism now [as opposed to only recognizing the big stuff like my example above]. It is so clear to me now that I can't even bear reading some of the posts that David P would post about the Bible Missionary Church. I just read a few lines and then the memories and the suffocation come back swiftly.

So I am with ya, Barb!

Edith K. Thurmond

2nd January 2009, 08:46 AM (08:46)

........ Organists, especially, are an increasingly 'endangered species'.

They definitely are and harpists are more endangered!

We are fortunate in our area to have an excellent pool of talented organists and organ students thanks to the various university music departments nearby - especially OCU's reknown School of Music's organ studies. Now if they could just recruit more harp students!

Since this is an older thread, I trust your church has found a good organist by now. :)

Christmastide blessings,

Barbara Moulton

2nd January 2009, 09:02 AM (09:02)

I was hanging out with some Fundie Indie Baptist friends one time - one in particular kept harping about those Wesleyans and their legalism....

This Wesleyan church my husband now pastors is one of the least legalistic churches we have ever been in. I like to think that the fact we have been here for almost nine years has something to do with it. We want to minister in grace...above all else.

Susan Unger

2nd January 2009, 11:21 AM (11:21)

This Wesleyan church my husband now pastors is one of the least legalistic churches we have ever been in. I like to think that the fact we have been here for almost nine years has something to do with it. We want to minister in grace...above all else.

The legalism this person was talking about what that a local Wesleyan church took attendance and would call people who didn't come. He saw that as making church attendance obligatory and thus legalistic. I saw it as just wanting to find out if a family was ok if they hadn't made it to church like they normally do. I probably should have explained that part but my brain was too sleepy at the time to think of that.

John, the guy in my story, was always looking for legalism in other churches/christians so he could pounce on it and condemn it. But he never saw the legalism in his own church and christian walk. It amazed me.

Susan Unger

2nd January 2009, 11:25 AM (11:25)

They definitely are and harpists are more endangered!

We are fortunate in our area to have an excellent pool of talented organists and organ students thanks to the various university music departments nearby - especially OCU's reknown School of Music's organ studies. Now if they could just recruit more harp students!

Since this is an older thread, I trust your church has found a good organist by now. :)

Christmastide blessings,

My mother's friend is a harpist but she's moved away and I never see her anymore. I always liked watching her play.

Edith K. Thurmond

2nd January 2009, 11:41 AM (11:41)

My mother's friend is a harpist but she's moved away and I never see her anymore. I always liked watching her play.

See if you like listening to the numerous sample offerings of harpist Tami Briggs on CD Baby:

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=13942

Christmastide blessings,

Matt Thompson

2nd January 2009, 07:25 PM (19:25)

I have wondered at this myself, and at the very least, feel that many churches are bordering on elitism. Often in their zeal to create a new tone of worship, some congregations enter the mindset that those churches which are more traditional in style are somehow less "Christian". It is vital that chuches remember that each part of the Body serves a purpose and has been specifically and intentionally designed.

Don't get me wrong, I love contemporary music, video illustrations, and progressive thinking. I believe it is where the church as a whole needs to go in order to reach a new generation. However, we must realize that there will be individual congregations which are called NOT to change. Any time we take a cookie cutter approach to what constitutes a "true church", we are on a slippery slope.

Barbara Moulton

2nd January 2009, 07:44 PM (19:44)

The legalism this person was talking about what that a local Wesleyan church took attendance and would call people who didn't come. He saw that as making church attendance obligatory and thus legalistic. I saw it as just wanting to find out if a family was ok if they hadn't made it to church like they normally do. I probably should have explained that part but my brain was too sleepy at the time to think of that.

John, the guy in my story, was always looking for legalism in other churches/christians so he could pounce on it and condemn it. But he never saw the legalism in his own church and christian walk. It amazed me.

I went through a period when I was perilously close to being legalistic in my identification and denunciation of legalism.

Not everyone who has a stricter view than me of what is appropriate and inappropriate Christian behaviour is a legalist. Someone becomes a legalist when they say that these things are "necessary for salvation" and/or when they judge and condemn others who don't adhere to the same as they do.

Susan Unger

2nd January 2009, 08:24 PM (20:24)

I went through a period when I was perilously close to being legalistic in my identification and denunciation of legalism.

Not everyone who has a stricter view than me of what is appropriate and inappropriate Christian behaviour is a legalist. Someone becomes a legalist when they say that these things are "necessary for salvation" and/or when they judge and condemn others who don't adhere to the same as they do.

Oh, trust me...John was judging and condemning the Wesleyans :rolleyes:

But, that is when I came to realize that legalism isn't just in one church or denomination. It can be in anywhere...

Interesting that you once came close to being like this. You don't come across that way now :basic05

Barb Bouldrey

2nd January 2009, 08:44 PM (20:44)

Matt,

Thank you for your post. I believe the word, "elitist" is much more appropriate to what I was trying to say than "Legalist."

Sometimes I feel that I am not good enough because I do not fit into the new mold all the time.

Barb

Sheri Lillard

3rd January 2009, 08:35 AM (08:35)

Barbara Moulton

3rd January 2009, 08:52 AM (08:52)

I have experienced a new form of legalism, one that forces pagan rites onto Christianity. We must celebrate the Lord's birth at a time He was not born to conform with the pagan holiday of celebrating the birth of the sun god, when the days start to lengthen. We are taught to lie to our children about Santa Claus, even though we are commanded not to give false witness. Yeshua did not celebrate Easter, which was being observed in His day to honor another false goddess, Ester, diety of fertility, hence eggs, rabbits and other symbols are used in the spring to worship her. We're forced to show up every day of the sun (Sunday is the sun god's special day), to worship the Lord when He just finished enjoying those who rest on the Seventh Day Sabbath (Saturday). The legalism I've encountered has been more pagan in orientation, than from Moses. How could things have gotten so backwards? Our people are perishing from lack of knowledge. Who has the heart of David to stand up to Goliath? Am I the only one?

Something is only legalism if we do two things:

a) say that these things are necessary to salvation.
b) judge and condemn those who worship and practice their faith differently than us.

99% of the people who celebrate Christmas, Easter and who worship on Sunday (the day of the Lord's resurrection) do neither a) nor b)

You are certainly entitled to believe as you do about the things you have listed here. I respect this and embrace you as a sister in Christ who does things differently than I do. But I must challenge you.

Because if I understand you correctly, you have implied that most of us here on NazNet are perishing because we worship on Sunday and celebrate Christmas and Easter. You have judged us based on our failure to live our Christian lives as you feel we should.

With all due respect...it seems to me that this post of yours has legalistic tones and implications.

Blessings,
Barbara

Barb Bouldrey

3rd January 2009, 11:33 AM (11:33)

Christians originated a CHRISTIAN celebration of Christmas and Easter to honor the birth and resurrection of Christ, our Savior. Christians began worshiping on Sunday to honor the day of the week that Christ arose. And, it was a unity situation where there were Jews and Gentiles wanting to worship Christ together.

It is the WORLD that has robbed Christians of the spiritual side of these days and made them worldly days. It is the church that has allowed the world to rob us. And it is the church that must keep the true meaning of Christmas and Easter alive inspite of the popular trends of the world.

The birth of the sun god and Ester have nothing to do with the origin of celebrating Christmas and Easter.....those were pagan ideas brought up to try to cancel the true meaning of Christmas and Easter. Christians did NOT set these days according to pagan rituals.

I got news for you....I never lied to my son about Santa. I never gave Santa credit for even one package under our tree. It was always a sacrifice to buy whatever we could for our son and I wanted him to know that every package came from Dad and Mom. We would always tell him that the men in red suits were Santas helpers and Santa was the spirit of love and giving at Christmas. But we always taught him that the real Christmas was Christ.

Matter of fact, if you came to my house during Christmas you would not find one Santa on my tree or on my wrapping paper. I know, I am extreme in this, but Santa is not allowed in my house. LOL When I get a package of wrapping paper, I throw away any that have Santa on it.

Barb

Barbara Moulton

3rd January 2009, 01:27 PM (13:27)

Paula Karr

3rd January 2009, 01:31 PM (13:31)

Matter of fact, if you came to my house during Christmas you would not find one Santa on my tree or on my wrapping paper. I know, I am extreme in this, but Santa is not allowed in my house. LOL When I get a package of wrapping paper, I throw away any that have Santa on it.

Barb

I have a collection of hand-painted Santa figurines that I add to every year. Most of them are the older, traditional looking Santas in long robes. The one I do have in a red suit is kneeling before a manger containing the Baby Jesus.

We, however, do have ONE forbidden them at our house - SNOW. No snowmen, no snowflake decorations, no shirts with snowflakes, no snow decorations in the yard. None. Nada. Zip.

LOL.

Susan Unger

3rd January 2009, 02:01 PM (14:01)

We, however, do have ONE forbidden them at our house - SNOW. No snowmen, no snowflake decorations, no shirts with snowflakes, no snow decorations in the yard. None. Nada. Zip.

LOL.

:eek:GASP:eek:

:fun01:fun01:fun01]I'm cut to the heart from the pain of it all!!!!!!:fun01:fun01:fun01

Barbara Moulton

3rd January 2009, 02:50 PM (14:50)

I have a collection of hand-painted Santa figurines that I add to every year. Most of them are the older, traditional looking Santas in long robes. The one I do have in a red suit is kneeling before a manger containing the Baby Jesus.

We, however, do have ONE forbidden them at our house - SNOW. No snowmen, no snowflake decorations, no shirts with snowflakes, no snow decorations in the yard. None. Nada. Zip.

LOL.

Well, in truth...I don't have many snow decorations either. Mother Nature takes care of all that for me. :)

Sheri Lillard

3rd January 2009, 06:01 PM (18:01)

Wow! I am going to love getting to know you girls, I can feel the Holy Spirit stirring something very powerful. Can you?

Love is the key to opening doors and that is why I'm here to love you enough to tell you the truth. I am a sinner worse than all of you, probably. I haven't got a prayer of surviving because the law of Moses has condemned me. It's legality stifles me, scares me, leaves me hopeless, and finally destroys me, because I never had the power to obey all those rules. But God was so compassionate, He sent His Son, to retrieve me from the horror of it all. He lifted me up by forgiving me and giving me a clean heart. As a new Christian, I ran to the Bible and read all about my new, and true, and kind Savior, who died for me. I caught fire and took my calling seriously, and it's a calling on all of us. We need to spread the good news because there is no other good news in the world! Salvation in Christ is the only salvation available. It's a cure for everything, if we could only believe! I can only praise God for setting me free from the bondage of legalism and forgiving me my past, present and future. It gives me courage to know that if I fail in my mission, I can get up and try again and keep on to the end. I am forgiven today for offending you. When I studied the Bible, I wondered why so much of it was not being observed and started to see some Christian churces doing things the Bible says NOT to do. I became suspicious and started investigating church doctrine, and still do. Thank you for teaching me about Nazerine doctrine. But I gotta call a spade a spade and point out that there's a better way: one new man is arising out of the ashes of pagan Christianity and Judiasm and it's beautiful. I've just got to share the good news!

Now that I'm saved, I'm liberated and not under any law, actually live with the law giver and his son, Yeshua. Everything is being shaken. If it's not true, it will fall, dry up and blow away. If you're saved, you don't have to worry, either. There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ! Halleluja!!!

I commend the Nazarines commitment to right living. If the Holy Spirit resides in you, you will be given the power to do all you have agreed to do. But if you fail, you are still loved, still acceptable, still worthy, still appreciated in Christ. He saved us utterly! He is the Tree of Life and if you got close enough to eat, you are blessed beyond your wildest dreams. I believe it's time to shake off the chains that have been put on us if they are not Bibical. Don't let your own heart condemn you. That is my prayer.

Paula Karr

3rd January 2009, 07:20 PM (19:20)

And yet, I believe we can still be friends -- somehow -- in spite of this.

:basic07 :fav04 :basic07

Barb Bouldrey

3rd January 2009, 07:49 PM (19:49)

Sheri

You did not offend anyone that I know of. We just all share our opinions, stay a while to discuss them further, then move on.

The Bible teaches us to search the scriptures and be grounded in them and know what we believe and what the Bible teaches. Often, a local church or a denomination strays from Biblical teachings, but that does not negate that church or that denomination.

Being a pastor's wife who has lived in small towns and worked with Ministerial Alliances, I have come to recognize Christ and holiness in pastors of many denominations. Being a part of Bible Study Fellowship for 5 years helped me see a love for Christ and the Bible and a desire to live a holy life in women from all denominations.

The key is to be right with God today and stay right with God, doing our best to live a life led by the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures.

I guess it concerns me because you come across as if you have found a brand new way of Christian living that has nothing to do with any denomination. Your last post sounds as if you are studying prophesy and the Anti-Christ.

"One new man is arising out of pagan Christianity?????" That just sounds weird to me.

And, not all established Christianity is pagan. That is such a judgemental statement. If you believe that, then I guess you have offended me.

As a young Christian I also "investigated" doctrines. I know which ones I believe and which ones I reject as false teaching. But I just might be wrong in my investigative results. I am not about to call a spade a spade because I might be seeing a spade where there is no spade.

Be careful in pronouncing judgement on others. If you have found a NEW doctrine, it is probably not new except to you.

I am so thankful for the wonderful, Godly, holy people I have met over the years that are not a part of my denomination. I am thankful that God taught me to see Him in others that I used to judge as not as holy as we are.

Barb

Barbara Moulton

3rd January 2009, 08:01 PM (20:01)

Wow! I am going to love getting to know you girls, I can feel the Holy Spirit stirring something very powerful. Can you?

Love is the key to opening doors and that is why I'm here to love you enough to tell you the truth.

With all due respect, the people who have helped me and shown me truth in my life are people who have taken the time to get to know me and acknowledge my journey with the Lord I love. They are people who seek to find connection with me and honour what I share with them, even when they disagree. They are people who explore the things of God with me before they announce that they have truth to share with me.

I don't feel this from you at this point. So don't be offended if I don't engage in future discussion.

Blessings on you,
Barbara

Dale Cozby

3rd January 2009, 08:38 PM (20:38)

Sheri see how quick the new legalists pounce on your every word and get offended.

I find the new legalism runs deep in the leftist liberal inclusive diverse group just as deep as the old holiness legalism did, just as deep as the old Jewish legalism did ....it just takes on a different form that is harder for the victim to identify and pin down.

Something is only legalism if we do two things:

a) say that these things are necessary to salvation.
b) judge and condemn those who worship and practice their faith differently than us. Isn't this a form of legalism saying what is and isn't legalism?
Aren't you defining who is guilty of this sin(legalism) by setting up its parameters? "calling a spade a spade", to quote Sheri.

Aren't you being a legalist by declaring someone practicing their faith different from you( as in Sheri), a legalist? How is this any different than saying some other action or position a person takes is sinful? Isn't legalism about declaring what is or isn't righteous or sinful? Not in testifying to the power of the gospel on your life, which is what Sheri did.

the people who have... shown me truth.... explore the things of God with me before they announce that they have truth to share with me. you mean people can only have truth to share IF they explore with you BEFORE it can be declared truth? this sounds highly legalistic to me. Truth is what you say it is and cannot exist outside of you and be owned by another before you examine it and declare it truth? this sounds like the shining example of legalism. We must pass it before the Rabbi for it to be kosher. It can't be kosher unless declared so by the Rabbi.

If we use your definition, then Paul, Peter and John were all legalists.

Kevin Rector

3rd January 2009, 09:43 PM (21:43)

I respect those who do things differently. We are all entitled to do so.

But Santa did come to my house and still comes to my house. Now that my girls are 21 and 23 they love to reminisce about those days of make believe and laugh at me for still making sure Santa leaves something under the tree for them. I didn't see it as lying to my children, anymore than when I read them stories of magical happenings and fairy tales.

Santa never replaced the joy of Christ nor the true meaning of Christmas for my family. It was just fun.

This year for the first time we did the Santa thing. My four year old, on Christmas Eve for his bedtime prayer said (among other things), "...and thank you for Santa." My boy believes in Santa (what fun), but he knows that God is bigger - he doesn't thank Santa for God, he thanks God for Santa.

Barb Bouldrey

3rd January 2009, 11:19 PM (23:19)

Dale,

I am very confused as to whom you are calling "new legalists" who got offended. And who "pounced on Sheri's every word?"

And what in the world is "leftist liberal inclusive diverse group?"

A lot of what Sheri shares is a beautiful testimony of her journey with God. Just an occasional sentence concerns me. It sounds as if she is calling all Christians that do not believe the way she does, "pagan Christianity." And if that is true that she believes that, it ought to be offensive to all Christians who do not believe exactly as she does.

Your words confuse me.

And for the record,everyone else... I just do not have Santa in my house since our son left home. As a child he believed in Santa. We just did not make him the most important person of Christmas. And I was selfish enough that I wanted the credit for buying his gifts, not giving the credit to Santa.

Barb

Sheri Lillard

4th January 2009, 04:37 AM (04:37)

Laurie Florence

4th January 2009, 07:37 AM (07:37)

I don't follow a new religion. The original church was Messianic. I have a saying, "If it's true, it's not new. If it's new, it's not true". If you are interested, I will be happy to tell you how pagan Christianity got started about 300 years after Christ was crucified, and why the true church went underground to avoid the persecution. There is one new man being formed: Ephesians 2:13-16. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but I value scripture above your interpretation (the Bible intreprets itself) or opinion, or whatever power you think you have to change scripture. If you haven't read the Bible or you don't agree with scripture, we will never have anything in common. If the Nazarines aren't legalistic, what was that whole page I read devoted just to alcohol and tobacco? You strain at gnats and swallow camels! What about the 4th commandment, to remember the Sabbath? Most Christians don't have a clue when God's Sabbaths are, or even what they're about! Why? Because, as the Bible explains, "They loved the traditions of men more than the traditions of God." Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:3-13. And yet, I believe we can be friends. . .in spite of this!

What exactly are you saying here?

I'm reading words like "pagan Christianity", "legalistic", "change scripture", "haven't read the Bible", and "don't have a clue" .

I have been trying to be open-minded and friendly as I've been reading your posts. But with words like what I read above, it is hard for me to be anything but offended. It almost sounds like you believe you know all about God, and we know nothing - like we don't even know how to love and serve Him in a way that is acceptable to Him. This is very sad. :basic04

And yet, in spite of all this, I believe God loves us all, and longs that we be friends.

Cindi Hammons

4th January 2009, 07:57 AM (07:57)

If you are interested, I will be happy to tell you how pagan Christianity got started about 300 years after Christ was crucified, and why the true church went underground to avoid the persecution.

I happen to agree with much of what you say about Christian "traditions" being connected with pagan customs. However, just because we celebrate these holidays/sabbath on days connected to pagan origins, does NOT mean that Christians are pagan. I resent that implication. The irony here is that I do agree with much of what you are saying, but you have come on this board assuming we are church history ignorants and that you have come in to save us from ourselves. That is not a good way to "win friends and influence people."

If the Nazarines aren't legalistic, what was that whole page I read devoted just to alcohol and tobacco? You strain at gnats and swallow camels!

What? Are we not allowed to discuss things among ourselves? So, if we have a discussion about a social issue of which we are unsure, then suddenly we are legalistic? Look, I'm about as UN-legalistic as they come, but defend the rights of those who wish to discuss social issues. This helps people flesh out their own beliefs and decide what is really important. They do this through scripture (yes Sherri, we DO read the Bible) and through interaction with peers.

By the way, it is spelled Nazarene.

And yet, I believe we can be friends. . .in spite of this!

I get the feeling, and maybe I'm wrong, that you are here to "set us all straight" in our thinking. Hey, I defend your right to voice your opinion, and I welcome it, but I want to let you know that your approach needs some fine tuning. Using gentleness and love will get you further.

I just read your profile and found it very interesting.

Hans Deventer

4th January 2009, 08:14 AM (08:14)

If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but I value scripture above your interpretation (the Bible intreprets itself) or opinion, or whatever power you think you have to change scripture. If you haven't read the Bible or you don't agree with scripture, we will never have anything in common.

Sheri, do you have any clue how incredibly arrogant and in fact, downright stupid these words sound? As if in the whole world, only Sheri Lillard and those who agree with her have the right interpretation of the Scriptures. You can't be serious. But the joke is a bad one. :basic04

Mamie White

4th January 2009, 08:37 AM (08:37)

Different subject. But when I read about the table games, I remember a church we pastored would not let anyone play a game of dominoes in the fellowship hall at church. We were 42 fanatics but could not play while at that church. Their reason being dominoes were used in gambling halls. I considered this legalism. So was money used in gambling halls but they sure kept money in their pockets.

Mamie

Barbara Moulton

4th January 2009, 02:05 PM (14:05)

Sheri see how quick the new legalists pounce on your every word and get offended.

I find the new legalism runs deep in the leftist liberal inclusive diverse group just as deep as the old holiness legalism did, just as deep as the old Jewish legalism did ....it just takes on a different form that is harder for the victim to identify and pin down.

Isn't this a form of legalism saying what is and isn't legalism?
Aren't you defining who is guilty of this sin(legalism) by setting up its parameters? "calling a spade a spade", to quote Sheri.

Aren't you being a legalist by declaring someone practicing their faith different from you( as in Sheri), a legalist? How is this any different than saying some other action or position a person takes is sinful? Isn't legalism about declaring what is or isn't righteous or sinful? Not in testifying to the power of the gospel on your life, which is what Sheri did.

you mean people can only have truth to share IF they explore with you BEFORE it can be declared truth? this sounds highly legalistic to me. Truth is what you say it is and cannot exist outside of you and be owned by another before you examine it and declare it truth? this sounds like the shining example of legalism. We must pass it before the Rabbi for it to be kosher. It can't be kosher unless declared so by the Rabbi.

If we use your definition, then Paul, Peter and John were all legalists.

Ok..so I am a legalist in your eyes Dale. And I think you are also implying that I am leftist liberal as well. Well that's ok. In grace I can let you have that opinion :)

I withdraw completely from this thread....because I am obviously doing a dismal job of communicating. :)

Blessings,
Barbara

Daniel Hamlin

4th January 2009, 02:24 PM (14:24)

If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but I value scripture above your interpretation (the Bible intreprets itself) or opinion, or whatever power you think you have to change scripture. If you haven't read the Bible or you don't agree with scripture, we will never have anything in common.

Wow. May I point out The Problem with the "Plain Sense" Reading of Scripture (http://www.crivoice.org/plainsense.html), authored by our own Dennis Bratcher.

Beth Porter

5th January 2009, 09:53 AM (09:53)

Dale Cozby

5th January 2009, 10:09 AM (10:09)

It was legalism that was instrumental (when I was a teen) that almost cost me my faith in Christ and my Christianity. It was learning to go beyond legalism that allowed me to embrace Christ and Christianity again.
My fear is that we exchange one form of legalism for another.

Work your your own salvation with fear and trembling....

and fear is not a dirty word.

Dale Cozby

5th January 2009, 11:01 AM (11:01)

Dale,
I am very confused as to whom you are calling "new legalists" who got offended. Let me see if I can explain what i mean.

Legalism is an attempt to gain favor with God and men by actions and words that are deemed righteous.(even if we know we are saved by grace) At its heart is a spiritual pride that can creep into anyone who seeks God's favor or man's favor. Current forms of legalism are expressed mostly in Political Correctness Enforcement.

Old legalism was an adherence both personal and corporate to a set of rules and commandments found in the Old and New testament deemed right actions for God’s chosen people. It was expressed in condemning anyone who claims to be a “chosen”(Claims Christ) person but does not adhere to the laws and commands deemed necessary.

New legalism does what old legalism did except that:
It redefines God’s people to be more inclusive and diverse and..

It interprets the Bible differently than previous generations and uses post-modern conventional philosophy to find favor with a larger more inclusive group and in the process condemns the old legalists who do not behave or speak "correctly".

Essentially it still says what is and isn't acceptable behavior for God's people...it just changes the who and what that is. But at it's heart is still the desire to find favor with all the people and with God. Not that this is bad as a by-product of our walk, but it shouldn't be the goal.

That is what makes it so insidious for Christians. The more we do the right things the more we become tempted to become legalists, old or new.

I dare say in each of us is a bit of a legalist trying to get out as we all want to be liked by God and men and so we do and say things that get us liked by the most people and we think will please God.

Tami Martin

5th January 2009, 11:13 AM (11:13)

But even if we slap a new coat of paint on it, isn't legalism still legalism? Isn't is still adding to what is required admission to heaven beyond the blood of Christ?

Back to the original topic, I was intrigued by Barb's original thought, but got totally sidetracked by something Ryan said that now has me in a quandry.

How do I - as a worship leader - balance this idea of worship being between me and God and the idea of worship being a corporate thing between my whole congregation and God? How do I balance the desire to stand before God and sing His praises with this thought that I'm forcing everyone to stand when they don't want to?

Dale Cozby

5th January 2009, 11:34 AM (11:34)

How do I balance the desire to stand before God and sing His praises with this thought that I'm forcing everyone to stand when they don't want to? Maybe make the left side( the goat side)
could be sitting only. The right side( the sheep side) standing only and the middle ( fence riders) those who want to sit or stand randomly.:basic03

Or put all the standing people in the back so they don't block the view of all the sitters...and force all those sitters up front closer to the action...and altars.;)

Often we stand for the opening song(call to worship sequence) this seems to help us focus corporately, then use the phrase "you may be seated" for the hymns in the middle( which usually means everyone sits down) and then sometimes ask everyone to stand before prayer. But not always. Maybe mix it up a bit.

Tami Martin

5th January 2009, 11:51 AM (11:51)

Thanks Dale. I do try to mix it up and we usually sit for the second sequence. Well...not WE exactly ;)

Hans Deventer

5th January 2009, 12:56 PM (12:56)

Essentially it still says what is and isn't acceptable behavior for God's people...it just changes the who and what that is. But at it's heart is still the desire to find favor with all the people and with God. Not that this is bad as a by-product of our walk, but it shouldn't be the goal.

That is what makes it so insidious for Christians. The more we do the right things the more we become tempted to become legalists, old or new.

I dare say in each of us is a bit of a legalist trying to get out as we all want to be liked by God and men and so we do and say things that get us liked by the most people and we think will please God.

I don't understand where you got this "get us liked by most people" idea from, but that has nothing to do with what shapes my opinions. Love itself was crucified, and I don't think His followers will find another response, however loving they might be.

Also, you are not seeking favour with God? You are not trying to please Him? :confused: I'd say each and every Christian should be seeking that, if only out of gratitude for God's love and grace, especially in Jesus Christ. Not in order to be accepted, but exactly because we are accepted. Isn't "Man's chief end to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever"?

I'm probably missing something here.

Billy Cox

5th January 2009, 01:21 PM (13:21)

I went through a period when I was perilously close to being legalistic in my identification and denunciation of legalism.

How is that even possible? It seems akin to casting out demons in the name of Beelzebub. :)

I think we need to differentiate between legalism and being judgmental. One can be a dyed in the wool legalist without being judgmental, although they do seem to travel together. One could also be an open-minded pluralist and still be very judgmental.

Billy Cox

5th January 2009, 01:56 PM (13:56)

How do I - as a worship leader - balance this idea of worship being between me and God and the idea of worship being a corporate thing between my whole congregation and God? How do I balance the desire to stand before God and sing His praises with this thought that I'm forcing everyone to stand when they don't want to?

So a typical weekend worship service includes getting together to hear someone sing, listen to someone pray, listen to someone read the announcements, and listen to someone talk for 30-45 minutes. There is nothing automagically worshipful about any of that.

Tami Martin

5th January 2009, 02:16 PM (14:16)

I guess you can look at it that way. But if that is how you see it, your problems would be far deeper than whether or not you should stand while singing.

I try to find time throughout the week to sing, pray, study the Word for myself. One one day, I like getting together with likeminded others to do those things in a group setting. There's certainly nothing "automagic" about it. I have to get my nose rubbed raw by the grindstone to make sure my part of it goes well and without much stumbling around. It's work and choice and effort on everyone's part.

Sheri Lillard

5th January 2009, 02:36 PM (14:36)

I've been called stupid, arrogant and legalistic. I thought I would find fellowship here and maybe one person who loves the truth as much as I do. Disappointed!

Barb Bouldrey

5th January 2009, 03:38 PM (15:38)

Sheri,

You make it hard to share love when you express judgement and name calling toward those you say you want to know and become friends with. I have brothers who attend different denominations than mine. We have an agreement not to argue our differences and love each other in spite of our difference. We do not put down each others beliefs, but accept each other as Christians trying to live holy lives.

When someone comes on NazNet with a "new and better" way of Christian living and wants to show us how wrong we are and how right they are, they do not make friends. They offend.

I do not believe your purpose on coming here was to find friendship. I feel as if you came on with excitement about your personal spiritual experience and wanted to teach us a "better" way.

It is possible to share your joy without destroying someone else's joy.

I am finished with the discussion.

Barb

Barb Bouldrey

5th January 2009, 03:55 PM (15:55)

Tami,

There is no answer to your questions. As long as there are two or more people in a worship service there will be different opinions about how to worship.

If some people....and it does not have to always be OLD people....decide they do not want to stand as long as everyone else, they should feel comfortable sitting down.

If you watch a rock concert on TV you will see everyone stand and put their hands in the air as soon as the singers appear on stage. If you attend an NYI convention on our district, the same thing happens when the music begins. If you attend a lot of contemporary churches, the same thing happens. It seems to me to be the fad, style, trend of music today in our world.

I attended a Phillips, Craig and Dean concert at MidAmerica U. back in '96. It was held at college church. As soon as the music started, everyone stood up and put their hands in the air, waving them around. If I wanted to see this group as they sang, I had to stand up, too. I did not feel as if I had to join the crowd and the trend by putting my hands in the air and waving them around. That felt dumb to me...it was not me. And I sat down after a while and just enjoyed listening.

When we attend Richmond, VA Southside Church of the Nazarene, their music is divided into segments, so the standing is not constant. They are totally contemporary and it is always the most awesome service. If we retired to VA we would attend that church because they just do it right....even though I would miss the traditional hymns.

Not everyone who is standing, clapping or waving their hands in the air is worshiping. Not everyone who is sitting down as they sing is worshiping. It is not how we worship, but THAT we worship.

It is hard to be a worship leader today. I wish the Holy Spirit would blind worship leaders to the negatives they must see from the platform. LOL

Barb

Linda Schroller

5th January 2009, 03:57 PM (15:57)

Tami, it sounds like you are doing the loving thing by mixing up the sitting and standing.

I've heard traditional legalists speak of everyone singing with heads bowed before the Lord--but all we were doing was looking at the hymnals!

I've heard contemporary legalists extol everyone worshipping looking up to Jesus--but all we were doing was looking at the powerpoint.

Standing and singing praise to Jesus is great until you have something like arthritis--then it can be torture.

Older or infirm folks are told it is ok to sit, but it is hard to worship looking at a sea of backsides.

Truly being loving will endeavor to meet the needs of ALL in the church.

Sounds like you are doing just exactly that!

Joel Merrill

5th January 2009, 04:03 PM (16:03)

I Has organ music been outlawed in the latest Manual? I really miss the glorious uplifting sounds of a well played organ.

I go to a small church that is blessed with a lot good musicians and singers. Many churches aren't so blessed. I love to hear a "glorious uplifting" organ. My pet peeve is that so many churches spend a ton of money on an organ that will do everything but slice bread and then just use the funeral setting. The organ has been called the king of instruments and it sounds best when it is played as in instrument of praise.

Joel

Laurie Florence

5th January 2009, 04:39 PM (16:39)

I've been called stupid, arrogant and legalistic. I thought I would find fellowship here and maybe one person who loves the truth as much as I do. Disappointed!

Fellowship comes through getting to know people and respecting them and their views - even when you don't agree with everything they believe.

Truth is received best when it's done in a gentle, kind and loving way that considers the other person as one who has feelings.

You don't need to hurt people's feelings in order to convey the truth.

We do best when we remember to converse with others in a manner we would want them to converse with us.

Now, I'm done with this thread, too.:basic04

Tami Martin

5th January 2009, 04:43 PM (16:43)

Sheri Lillard

5th January 2009, 06:31 PM (18:31)

I hear a lot of condemnation but no scripture to back it up. What gives?

Barb Bouldrey

5th January 2009, 06:39 PM (18:39)

Dale Cozby

5th January 2009, 06:49 PM (18:49)

I don't understand where you got this "get us liked by most people" idea from, but that has nothing to do with what shapes my opinions. No, but the goal of not offending anyone(except the old time legalists) may shape our actions. Our belief in the Truth and how we are and are not willing to share it influenced by a desire to find favor with the unsaved listener. Thus we impose a new way to speak and act on Christians who we declare are acting "Christlike" or aren't acting "Christlike", a term we hear in new legalism a lot.

So telling people they are not acting "Christlike" is a form of legalism is it not?
As though we know the rules of how Christ would act in any situation.

Love itself was crucified, and I don't think His followers will find another response, however loving they might be. True, if we speak as Jesus spoke and act as Jesus acted we should get the same results. But there is another church at work finding favor among the powers of men.

Also, you are not seeking favour with God? You are not trying to please Him? :confused: I'd say each and every Christian should be seeking that, if only out of gratitude for God's love and grace, especially in Jesus Christ. Not in order to be accepted, but exactly because we are accepted. Isn't "Man's chief end to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever"?
Yes, Paul said this about himself "If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more….as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." Anyone who does right will be tempted to begin to think they are something when they are not. Anyone who takes pride in himself, is also tempted to be prideful toward others, at least in his heart. We are told to watch ourselves lest we also be tempted.

Jesus pointed this out about the legalists: "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'" Easy to love favor....even for good men.

It is possible to be a legalist without being a hypocrite, but the Pharisees were both. Just like Billy pointed out you can be a legalist without being judgmental. They tend to travel together, but aren't the same thing.

Lastly, Acts says, "Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

So that is the upside of enjoying the favor of the people. The downside is the temptation to become prideful and legalistic and controlling. Something that obviously crept into the church over the years and corrupted it as badly as any other priesthood had been, with the bowing, kissing rings, being called "father"....the whole nine yards.

Dale Cozby

5th January 2009, 06:56 PM (18:56)

I was going to stay out of this from now on, but I have to stay with it.

How about, "Judge not lest ye be judged?"
How about "Love, joy, peace, gentleness, KINDESS."
How about "Build each other up." "Encourage one another."
How about "Don't be concerned about the twig in your brother's eye, but with the log in yours?"
How about "don't get involved in useless disputes over religion?" (Paul says something to this effect)
How about the Proverbs that urge us to use sweet words like honey, not vinegar.

I do not think we need scriptures to prove that Christians should act in love and humility.

And Hebrews 12:14 tells us to follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man will see the Lord."

Barb

For the sake of debate:
Are we not endanger of becoming a legalist when we make up a new list of acceptable behaviors? Even if we quote scripture to do so?

The scriptures above you quote are about being judgmental. Legalism is a state of the heart....deeper than being judgmental(an action). Being judgmental springs forth from a heart of legalism.

When we condemn any sin in a fellow believer are we not being legalistic as well as judgmental? Saying that they are acting out of the boundaries of a follower of Jesus should?

If we have freedom in Christ and if we are saved by grace and not works then there is no prescribed way "Christians" are to behave. And yet we do conform ourselves somehow....by the renewing of our minds our actions begin to change.

Barb Bouldrey

6th January 2009, 01:25 AM (01:25)

Dale,

I was not referring to legalism, but being judgemental in that last post. I feel that when someone "calls a spade a spade" and refers to me as a "pagan Christian," he/she is being judgemental.

My post was a direct answer to a direct question asking for scriptures to support the idea that we are reprimanding her. (not condemning her, as she suggests) I am trying to get her to see that she can express her joy and excitement in what she believes without putting us down.

and a lot of what you are saying this week goes back to my original post where I suggest that there can be a new form of legalism...one that denounces the old legalism, only to become legalistic in their attitudes toward what should and should not be done to worship correctly today.

New religious tradtions replace old traditions, but too often we humans make tradtions "LAW."

Barb

Hans Deventer

6th January 2009, 01:27 AM (01:27)

I've been called stupid, arrogant and legalistic. I thought I would find fellowship here and maybe one person who loves the truth as much as I do. Disappointed!

It would help a lot if you, in this very same post, would not sound so arrogant and judgemental again.

Hans Deventer

6th January 2009, 01:40 AM (01:40)

No, but the goal of not offending anyone(except the old time legalists) may shape our actions. Our belief in the Truth and how we are and are not willing to share it influenced by a desire to find favor with the unsaved listener. Thus we impose a new way to speak and act on Christians who we declare are acting "Christlike" or aren't acting "Christlike", a term we hear in new legalism a lot.

So telling people they are not acting "Christlike" is a form of legalism is it not?
As though we know the rules of how Christ would act in any situation.

True, if we speak as Jesus spoke and act as Jesus acted we should get the same results. But there is another church at work finding favor among the powers of men.

Yes, Paul said this about himself "If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more….as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." Anyone who does right will be tempted to begin to think they are something when they are not. Anyone who takes pride in himself, is also tempted to be prideful toward others, at least in his heart. We are told to watch ourselves lest we also be tempted.

Jesus pointed this out about the legalists: "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'" Easy to love favor....even for good men.

It is possible to be a legalist without being a hypocrite, but the Pharisees were both. Just like Billy pointed out you can be a legalist without being judgmental. They tend to travel together, but aren't the same thing.

Lastly, Acts says, "Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

So that is the upside of enjoying the favor of the people. The downside is the temptation to become prideful and legalistic and controlling. Something that obviously crept into the church over the years and corrupted it as badly as any other priesthood had been, with the bowing, kissing rings, being called "father"....the whole nine yards.

Dale, I don't understand a word of what you are saying, it might as well have been in Chinese, I'm sorry. :basic04

Hans Deventer

6th January 2009, 02:31 AM (02:31)

I am trying to get her to see that she can express her joy and excitement in what she believes without putting us down.

That would be great!

Sheri Lillard

6th January 2009, 05:40 AM (05:40)

Finally, some scripture and you are absolutely right! I apologize and hope you will forgive me. I made some statements, in truth, but I was not calling you, or anyone names. I'm sorry I offended you. I have been studying this subject for more than 20 years and for the most part, I have kept my opinions to myself. God urged me to start speaking out about these things, even though I hate conflict. He told me that if I don't speak up, people will perish and their blood will be on my hands. I have done that and now He has released me from responsibility. I still stand by everything I said but what you do or believe is strictly between you and the Lord. Let the last thing I say on this subject be, There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.

Tami Martin

6th January 2009, 07:49 AM (07:49)

I'm always curious when someone comes to an established denomination's message board for their preaching of new truths. Or different ones, as it were. I've seen it happen several times now and I'll never understand why.

I mean, I certainly enjoy the theological discussions on this site. If I want to engage someone with an established faith, I generally try to ask questions and get them talking about what it is they believe, rather than start off telling them straight up they're wrong.

I've asked God to give me someone to witness to before, but He's never sent me a lost person. He always sends me someone who has fallen away from their faith. But He's never sent me to someone with an established and visible healthy biblical faith.

Hans Deventer

6th January 2009, 10:08 AM (10:08)

I'm always curious when someone comes to an established denomination's message board for their preaching of new truths. Or different ones, as it were. I've seen it happen several times now and I'll never understand why.

We've had someone in our church, a couple of years ago, who, during the time for testimonies (we had it every Sunday) very often felt led to teach us. Of course, that didn't work so well. It turned out to be an identity issue, she found value in this role. I don't think that was a unique reason.

Dale Cozby

6th January 2009, 10:14 AM (10:14)

I was not referring to legalism, but being judgemental in that last post. I feel that when someone "calls a spade a spade" and refers to me as a "pagan Christian," he/she is being judgemental. I guess I just don't take every statement someone makes as an indictment of me...even if they meant it as such.

Often in here we put ourselves(Christians in general that is) down about how badly we corporately have acted. I take it with a grain of salt. While I agree we may be guilty of corporate sin....I can take it personally or not. If i take everything personally I would be often offended here. According to us, we(christians) are racists, exploiters of mankind, hypocrites, Pharisees, legalists, daily sinners, unkind, ungrateful, and now pagan. So if the shoe fits...but if it doesn't leave it at that, a general indictment of the church visible.

I am trying to get her to see that she can express her joy and excitement in what she believes without putting us down. I know what you were doing. yet, it is also an example of how we pass judgment on those who pass judgment. Something that is the topic of this thread...I think.

and a lot of what you are saying this week goes back to my original post where I suggest that there can be a new form of legalism...one that denounces the old legalism, only to become legalistic in their attitudes toward what should and should not be done to worship correctly today. Yep...we agree. I think it funny that the topic included the idea that standing to sing is more holy than sitting. I don't know how many times I have thought this in my own services...especially when my hip is aching like crazy from an old injury inflamed. But as pastor you can be assured I will stand dutifully...so as to not be thought less of and "gain the favor of the people"....so I succumb to the new legalists. ...Hows that for a confession?

Hans, sorry I spoke Chinese to you. It made sense to me at the time...I suppose the ramblings of a sleepy overtaxed person yesterday.

Tami Martin

6th January 2009, 10:15 AM (10:15)

It turned out to be an identity issue, she found value in this role. I don't think that was a unique reason.

And that is a pretty common, fundamental human need, isn't it? To be valued. To be needed. To be known.

The answers are there, in every book in the Bible. But I wonder if we don't expect everyone to find it themselves instead of affirming that value with each other. I mean, I agree that my chief value is as a child of God. My highest need is in serving God. I am known by God as no other knows me. And yet, I am often left to discover, nuture and celebrate this on my own. I'm seldom valued, needed or known by other human beings.

So while we need to be valued, needed and known - by God - we also need to be valued, needed and known by other people too. But that's a whole 'nother thread!

Tami Martin

6th January 2009, 10:21 AM (10:21)

IOften in here we put ourselves(Christians in general that is) down about how badly we corporately have acted. I take it with a grain of salt. While I agree we may be guilty of corporate sin....I can take it personally or not. If i take everything personally I would be often offended here. According to us, we(christians) are racists, exploiters of mankind, hypocrites, Pharisees, legalists, daily sinners, unkind, ungrateful, and now pagan. So if the shoe fits...but if it doesn't leave it at that, a general indictment of the church visible.

Dale, this has bothered me to one degree or another for a very long time. I sometimes wonder if when we say "we" we're not really just trying to distance ourselves from the implied "I."

Hans Deventer

6th January 2009, 10:22 AM (10:22)

And that is a pretty common, fundamental human need, isn't it? To be valued. To be needed. To be known.

The answers are there, in every book in the Bible. But I wonder if we don't expect everyone to find it themselves instead of affirming that value with each other. I mean, I agree that my chief value is as a child of God. My highest need is in serving God. I am known by God as no other knows me. And yet, I am often left to discover, nuture and celebrate this on my own. I'm seldom valued, needed or known by other human beings.

So while we need to be valued, needed and known - by God - we also need to be valued, needed and known by other people too. But that's a whole 'nother thread!

Absolutely! Point is however, where do we seek value? Is it in "Hey look, I can do something, I know something, I am special"? All these things will pass away when we end up alone in our wheelchair in the old folks home. And it starts to look increasingly pathetic.
So what we are to do is to confirm our value as objects of God's love to one another. At least, that's how I've come to see it.

Tami Martin

6th January 2009, 10:27 AM (10:27)

And yet, when we make our lists of what is "correct" and what is "incorrect," what is the "right" way to be a Christian and what is the wrong, we're not creating an environment of love where not only I but everyone else can find that value. When I take the place of the Holy Spirit - or try to, rather - and tell someone how to dress or what hobbies they can enjoy or how they must worship, I am being about as unloving as it is possible to be.

I would posit that when I seek that value in my identity as a child of God, in a rightly operating body of Christ, I'll find that value reflected in my church as well.

Sheri Lillard

7th January 2009, 04:33 AM (04:33)

After reading everything you've had to say about me, I want you to know a couple of things about me. I am special, but not more or less special than you are. My mission is not only to call the unsaved to grace, but to prepare the church for the soon coming return of Christ. The Lord has prepared me for this and has commanded me to tell everyone who will listen, what He has taught me.

If we are all supposed to go up to Jerusalem to observe the Feast of Tabernacles, don't you think it would be a good idea to know what that is and how it's celebrated? This is not a matter of salvation, it is information for the saints, so they can resist the wiles of the devil and avoid his deception. I don't see anything wrong for advocating following the Lord and doing what He did or not doing what He didn't do.

I don't like the general discussion forum because too many people get offended and I don't want to have to apologize every time I post. I invite you to join a social group I started called "Gentiles for Yeshua", an on-line Messianic congregation. I look forward to learning, discussing and teaching about the Jewishness of our Messiah, according to the scriptures.

I don't blame you for not trusting me, but I hope you will check the scriptures and trust them. I pray that God will send you a sign, vision or dream to confirm that He supports my work. I love you in Christ and I look forward to an eternal relationship!

Hans Deventer

7th January 2009, 04:56 AM (04:56)

After reading everything you've had to say about me, I want you to know a couple of things about me.

I've been saying nothing about you, I don't even know you so how could I? We've been talking about what you wrote here and how it was interpreted.

I am special, but not more or less special than you are. My mission is not only to call the unsaved to grace, but to prepare the church for the soon coming return of Christ. The Lord has prepared me for this and has commanded me to tell everyone who will listen, what He has taught me.

Well, perhaps we can give some feedback on how to do that. In fact, that's what we've been trying to do already.

I don't like the general discussion forum because too many people get offended and I don't want to have to apologize every time I post. I invite you to join a social group I started called "Gentiles for Yeshua", an on-line Messianic congregation. I look forward to learning, discussing and teaching about the Jewishness of our Messiah, according to the scriptures.

Sheri, if you "look forward to learning, discussing and teaching about the Jewishness of our Messiah, according to the scriptures", NazNet isn't such a bad place at all. I'm very grateful for the balance in these words, because that is the very thing several people have been trying to convey. If that is what you want, you are most welcome. NazNet can only exist we all are both willing to teach and being taught.

You may want to use the theology forum rather than the general discussion forum though, if your focus is on the Scriptures.