Purity in the Church [Archive]

Jamie Wayne

8th July 2008, 09:41 AM (09:41)

I am not sure of your thinking here. However, I wonder if entire sanctification (from your perspective) would be a hedge upon hedge.

No, entire sanctification is something that the Holy Spirit does; hedges are barriers that we put up.

Perhaps Crystal can explain this better than I can, but my understanding is that there are the 614 laws in the Old Testament; however, so that one doesn't come close to breaking any of those laws, more laws were put up so that one doesn't come close to breaking one of the 614.

If I'm not mistaken, these new "laws" were called the mishnah, which was not the law itself, but what I'm referring to as a "hedge" around the law.

For example, if one isn't supposed to work on the Sabbath, a hedge might be saying that one can't walk more than thus and such number of steps on the Sabbath. Perhaps one can leave a bucket of grain for the animals, but one can't lift it up and dump it in their food bin.

The Church of the Nazarene has done similar things (not to pick on the CotN, but this is a CotN discussion board, so it's relevant to criticize the CotN rather than, say, non-CotN Fundamentalists). For example, rather than let people discern which movies are "good" and which are "bad," we'll outlaw all movies. Rather than allow individuals to decide whether or not they are capable of drinking alcohol in moderation and giving thanks to God while doing so, we'll outlaw alcohol all together.

That is exactly what I'm talking about: putting up hedges that entail a stricter standard than Our LORD established for the Church.

Jesus turned water into wine, but we wouldn't let Him do that in the CotN because it's against OUR rules - not His.

Does that help clarify my earlier post in this thread?

That post had nothing to do with quenching the Spirit with regard to so called "entire sanctification."

In fact, I would say that, from a certain point of view, these hedges can get in the way of the Holy Spirit; though, when the Church closes the door on the Holy Spirit, as Brian McLaren wrote in Generous Orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit usually finds a way in via an open window.

So, I return to the idea that it is only the Head of the Church who has "standing" to make any demands, as such, regarding purity.

Ramesh Deosarran

8th July 2008, 10:30 PM (22:30)

The Church of the Nazarene has done similar things (not to pick on the CotN, but this is a CotN discussion board, so it's relevant to criticize the CotN rather than, say, non-CotN Fundamentalists). For example, rather than let people discern which movies are "good" and which are "bad," we'll outlaw all movies. Rather than allow individuals to decide whether or not they are capable of drinking alcohol in moderation and giving thanks to God while doing so, we'll outlaw alcohol all together.

I think you explained "hedges" very well. However, if "movies" and "alcohol" would fall under hedges, we would have to include some forms of entertainments, lotteries, membership in some organizations, dancing, unprescribed use of depressants, cloning, homosexuality, etc.

Just a thought!

Jamie Wayne

9th July 2008, 10:23 AM (10:23)

I think you explained "hedges" very well. However, if "movies" and "alcohol" would fall under hedges, we would have to include some forms of entertainments, lotteries, membership in some organizations, dancing, unprescribed use of depressants, cloning, homosexuality, etc.

Just a thought!

I guess on the homosexuality issue I might disagree in the sense that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sinful in themselves, whereas all of the other things the Bible does not condemn, as such. Therefore, not engaging in homosexual acts is not a "hedge," itself, like not dancing at all, not watching movies at all, not drinking alcohol at all, etc...

If we were to put up a hedge around homosexuality, it might look something like not having sex at all, because then one might not be tempted to have homosexual sex, or not ever being alone with members of the same sex at all, because that might tempt one to have homosexual sex.

That seems to sound thoroughly ridiculous to me, though - about as ridiculous as some of the other "hedges" that we've put up.

We can't have people of the same sex sitting next to each other in the pews, because that might lead to homosexual relations, and we can't have people of the opposite sex sitting next to each other in the pews, because that might lead to lust of some form; maybe we can avoid both homosexual relations and heterosexual lust if we leave the pews empty!

In the process, however, that goes directly against what holiness (can I substitute "holiness" for "purity"?) is all about - relations between people and their Source.

Some monks tried to do the same thing, by removing themselves from the "world," living in solitude, but then they realized that it was better for monks to live in a community - of monks - and, though that was better, they still sought to escape from the world.

Jesus did not attempt to escape from the world - despite the impurity of the world. If the purity of the Church requires that it escape from the world, then we cannot complete what Jesus left for us to do - and Jesus told us that we would do even greater things. If the purity of the Church requires that it escape from the world, then what is the purpose of the Church, to sit there and look pretty for Jesus? NO!

The purpose of the Church is to get its corporate hands dirty in the filth of the world, yet if not going into a bar is a hedge around the hedge of no drinking which is a hedge around drunkenness, which is a hedge around destroying the relationships between our neighbor and our God, then we've hedged out those in the bar who need the Church - and if they won't step out of the bar into the church, why won't the Church step into the bar and fetch them out?

We need to be pure in the sense of purity of mission, not purity of abstinence. We need to be pure in love, pure in servitude, pure in putting aside our ego - not purely avoiding the "appearance of evil." To the Pharisees, didn't Jesus reek of the appearance of evil? Healing on the Sabbath! Hanging out with drunkards and gluttons! Yet, we would agree that Jesus was as pure as pure can be. Jesus was more concerned with people than with the hedges created to protect the Sabbath; Jesus said that the Sabbath was for man, not man for the Sabbath, but none of the hedges supported that notion.

Sorry for the rant... :)

Sometimes I get worked up about these hedges.

I taught my 2 year old nephew something a few months ago:

"What would Jesus do?" I asked him.

He didn't know, because he's only 2, so I taught him to answer:

"Eat bacon!"

"And?," I'd ask.

"Heal on the Sabbath!"

The other day my sister called to tell me that my nephew, that day, was chanting "Eat bacon! Heal on the Sabbath!" all day. :)

Ramesh Deosarran

9th July 2008, 10:35 PM (22:35)

You sound very passionate in your opinion.

The Church of the Nazarene is distinctive in doctrine. In many ways the attempt to “particularize the Christian life” is related to this distinctiveness. The Manual refers to what you call “hedges” as “guides and helps” to holy living.

I Thess. 5:21-22 says “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.”

If the General Assembly should vote to remove all the “hedges” what effect would such decision have on the general distinctiveness of the Church?

Hans Deventer

10th July 2008, 01:11 AM (01:11)

If the General Assembly should vote to remove all the “hedges” what effect would such decision have on the general distinctiveness of the Church?

We'd be stuck with what really matters and had to believe that people who are entirely sanctified are full of the fruit of the Spirit and that indeed "Against such things there is no law." We'd had to believe our own doctrine! Scary.

Talk about distinctiveness..............

Jamie Wayne

10th July 2008, 09:14 AM (09:14)

Well said, Hans.

Ramesh Deosarran

10th July 2008, 05:08 PM (17:08)

Absolutely! It will be distinctive. However, what are the things that really matters? We could come up with a list.

Besides, the good thing about the “hedges” is that they are guides. In the Church of the Nazarene there is no demand for a profession of the “hedges” to be a member. Some do not even know about the hedges until after membership. Also, there is no demand for the profession of sanctification to be a member. We usually encourage everyone to press on to it.

Why are the “hedges” barriers to performing what really matters? Could there be a lingering desire? May be not! May be there is! If there is, why abide when there is no demand? (This is a general comment. It is not pointing to anyone here.)
Christian ethics goes to the heart of character and conduct of anyone who professes newness in Christ. We look to the Scripture for principles and the Church for examples.

One of the most destructive elements to personal lives and families is alcohol/drugs. If we tell people it is fine to “take a little and do some” as long as you do not abuse it, where is the distinction?

I think we can do what really matters with the hedges. Also, with or without the hedges we have to believe our own doctrine.

Jamie Wayne

10th July 2008, 06:06 PM (18:06)

Absolutely! It will be distinctive. However, what are the things that really matters? We could come up with a list.

Yes, but the problem with lists are that often they let people off the hook. For example, if you stay at home by yourself and abide by the 10 Commandments, you may be keeping the Law 100%, but you'd be missing the real point, to love your neighbor and to love God. It's easier to keep the list than to do what Jesus "demanded," to get back to your original question about what "demands" the Church should have regarding purity.

Lists are usually a bad idea, I think.

Besides, the good thing about the “hedges” is that they are guides. In the Church of the Nazarene there is no demand for a profession of the “hedges” to be a member. Some do not even know about the hedges until after membership. Also, there is no demand for the profession of sanctification to be a member. We usually encourage everyone to press on to it.

If I'm not mistaken, one can't be any sort of leader in the CotN while blatantly ignoring its hedges...

Why are the “hedges” barriers to performing what really matters?

Because one may seek to follow the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law, so to speak, and be too concerned with the hedge and not concerned with why the hedge can be useful. Wouldn't it be better to know why the hedge is useful than to simplemindedly respect the hedge for no other reason than it's on the "list"?

Christian ethics goes to the heart of character and conduct of anyone who professes newness in Christ. We look to the Scripture for principles and the Church for examples.

But what do we do when Paul tells Timothy to drink wine, or when Jesus turns water into wine, or when the Psalms speak of the wine that gladdens the heart? It seems that Scriptures is giving examples that are contrary to the Church!

One of the most destructive elements to personal lives and families is alcohol/drugs. If we tell people it is fine to “take a little and do some” as long as you do not abuse it, where is the distinction?

Did Jesus abuse alcohol when He turned water into wine? Did Paul encourage Timothy to abuse wine?

Where is the distinction?

I think we can do what really matters with the hedges. Also, with or without the hedges we have to believe our own doctrine.

I agree, and I don't really mean to make this about alcohol because it's such a larger issue than that, but what's more important is what the hedge is surrounding - not the hedge itself, and that, I believe, should be the distinction.

Part of my "doctrine" is the belief that alcohol is a gift from God, and we should give thanks to Him for His good creation.

What some might suggest is that if we don't have guns, nobody will shoot anybody...so let's put up the hedge around shooting people by not having guns. People will get guns or find other ways of killing people, just like, during Prohibition in the States, people found ways of making alcohol when it was illegal. Guns don't kill people - people do. Alcohol doesn't drink itself. The answer isn't to get rid of guns any more than it is to denounce drinking alcohol. The answer is to love our neighbor and God; can we do that when owning guns or drinking alcohol? I say, "Yes, we most certainly can."

Should everyone own a gun? No. Should everyone drink alcohol? No. Wisdom is not banning either because some have problems, for that would be putting up hedges where they don't belong, limiting freedom where it doesn't need to be restricted.

Would you think that teens would be less likely to get pregnant if they understood more about what they'd be getting into - or - would they be less likely to get pregnant if you simply tell them that "premarital sex" is wrong, so don't do it?

Lists often don't promote wisdom, they often promote thoughtless obedience.

Surely God didn't give us the 10 Commandments just because He felt like it one day...there must have been a reason, I'd say. And, the commandments, themselves, weren't arbitrary, either. There were reasons why God gave the commandments that He did. If we were more concerned with why God gave the commandments that He did, maybe we wouldn't need the commandments anymore.

Don't steal, because that's not loving your neighbor.

Well, if I were more concerned with loving my neighbor, I wouldn't be thinking about stealing, and if I loved my neighbor, God wouldn't need to tell me not to steal.

Jamie Wayne

10th July 2008, 06:13 PM (18:13)

Let me ask you this, Dr. Ramesh:

Does following the hedges make one holy or pure?

Does not following the hedges make one unholy or impure?

Dr. Oord and others suggest that holiness is relational, and I agree; if that's the case, then holiness is about people - not following lists. Does that help you understand why I don't like the lists? When people focus on following lists (and some really do think that they're "holier than thou" because they follow the lists), are they focusing on people?

When you were pastor of the Grapevine Church of the Nazarene, what did you teach your congregation? Did you teach them that following the list made them holy and not following them made them unholy, or did you teach them that holiness has everything to do with relationships and, though the lists may be helpful, people are more important than lists?

I've never been a pastor, so I've never had the experience of having to teach on such a level. What do you think?

Barbara Moulton

10th July 2008, 11:29 PM (23:29)

When you were pastor of the Grapevine Church of the Nazarene, what did you teach your congregation? Did you teach them that following the list made them holy and not following them made them unholy, or did you teach them that holiness has everything to do with relationships and, though the lists may be helpful, people are more important than lists?

I've never been a pastor, so I've never had the experience of having to teach on such a level. What do you think?

I've been in "holiness" churches all my life and I have never heard anyone preach that you are holy by following a list. But I have heard teaching (and indeed taught) that there are things we can do (and things we can refrain from doing) that will help us in our relationship with God and others.

I once read a poem about a dog. While he was tied to the tree he was miserable in the yard. Untied however, he sat down in the exact same place, content and at rest in the yard.

The boundary line (the end of the yard) remained the same for the dog. But in the first case he was kept in the boundary by a rope. In the second, he was kept within the boundary by loyalty to his training and respect for his master. He "could" move outside the boundary of his yard but he "chose" to stay within his yard.

In both cases, the dog was safe from the perils outside the yard. And, from a distance, it might be hard to tell...that the two reasons why the dog stayed in the yard are completely different.

This might be a clumsy illustration...I don't know.

What I am trying to say is that the boundary is not legalism. Legalism can be one reason why people stay within boundaries but that doesn't mean that all those who live within boundaries are legalists.

Many may stay within a boundary because they are tied with a rope of legalism...but many choose to stay within the same boundary because they believe in doing so they are pleasing their master and helping their spiritual walk.

Hedges are totally compatible with holiness and I believe they can be helpful for individuals and churches. It is absolutely harmful to our Christian walk, our relationship God and others, to be chained (or to chain others) with the rope of legalism. However, it can also be harmful to tell people that the hedges are simply manmade lists.

For some who are moving out of harmful behaviours or for those who may be tempted to a particular harmful behaviour, or who know they have a particular weakness, hedges are often God given direction for their lives. And if they find a church filled with people who have the same hedge, it could very well be that being part of that church is part of that same divine direction.

As people change, the hedges might change. As churches change, the hedges might change. But that doesn't mean that all the hedges were wrong before nor that everyone who lived within that hedge was a legalist. Holiness churches have definitely had some extreme legalists within their midst. But we are not alone in this. But just because some developed and remained within hedges because of legalism, it doesn't mean that every hedge was developed out of legalims.

Purity in the church? It is not legalism demanding that everyone stay within the same hedge. But neither is it dismissing the very real protections that some have placed in their lives simply because we feel we have the freedom to step outside that hedge.

People are more important than lists. But a related truth is that people are more important than my opinion of their lists.

Gina Stevenson

11th July 2008, 12:45 AM (00:45)

So well said, Barbara.

Hans Deventer

11th July 2008, 01:02 AM (01:02)

Why are the “hedges” barriers to performing what really matters?

Ramesh, surely you've walked around in the church for a while. I don't understand where the question comes from. Ask Jesus that question and you will find the answer all over the gospels.

I think we can do what really matters with the hedges.

I doubt it. "What really matters" would be our essentials. My experience is that people care precious little bout the essentials, but bunches about the hedges.

Also, with or without the hedges we have to believe our own doctrine.

No. If you abide with the hedges, no one will care if you don't. It looks great from the outside. You can easily be a "whitewashed tomb".
But without them, you have to live the experience, there is no pretending anymore.

Barbara Moulton

11th July 2008, 08:46 AM (08:46)

No. If you abide with the hedges, no one will care if you don't. It looks great from the outside. You can easily be a "whitewashed tomb".
But without them, you have to live the experience, there is no pretending anymore.

****Disclaimer****
Although I mention alcohol in this post I have no desire to open that discussion again. It is simply an issue that works as an example for the point I am trying to make :)

I grow concerned at the implication that hedges imply hypocrisy and pretense. What matters is what is in the heart and while a hedge can be a whitewashing that hides unrightousenss, it may also be a legitimate expression of dedication to God for an individual. Until you get up close and in relationship with someone you might not be able to tell.

I have hedges in my life. But I would hope nobody here would presume to judge that my Christian life is based on pretense because of that. There are things that I believe are essential to the Christian walk. If Hans and I were to compare what we believe the essentials are, I think we would be very close. But I also believe that there are non essential hedges that I can put in my life that can be helpful to my Christian walk.

I challenge anyone who says they have no hedges and that they just live in the freedom of the spirit. Every single one of us have some type of hedges. When it comes to alcohol, my hedge is simply abstinence. For many the hedge is moderation. And yes, a case could be made that moderation is a biblical hedge and abstinence is not. But from the discussions I've seen here on NazNet, I have observed that Christians who practice moderation in drinking alcohol have each developed their own concept of what moderation means to them. For some, moderate drinking means the occasional glass of wine with a meal. For some moderate drinking means going to wine and pizza parties and drinking with friends once or twice a week. Why do some judge the hedge of abstinence as "hypocritical but view their own hedge to determine moderation as a sign of spiritual freedom?

One way that purity is shown in the church is in treating each other with grace. So absolutely...those with a hedge should not judge those who don't have the same hedge. But those without that hedge should not judge those with one.

There is a woman in our church who has started to go out of her way to make something vegetarian for my daughter when we have potluck dinners. She is not a vegetarian herself and might not even understand why Leisha has decided to be one. But she respects and supports it. People in our church don't mock Leisha's feelings in this matter but neither does Leisha expect everyone to be like her.

That to me is a good example of purity in the church.

Jamie Wayne

11th July 2008, 09:45 AM (09:45)

I've been in "holiness" churches all my life and I have never heard anyone preach that you are holy by following a list.

I haven't been in holiness churches all my life, but since I have been in a holiness church, I have noticed a tendency for people to think that adhering to a list does make one holy and not adhering to that list makes one unholy - whether that mentality was ever preached or not, it does exist.

Hedges can be useful, I agree; maybe I'm pushing too hard the other way to make a point, but you're right: they can and do have their place.

****Disclaimer****
Although I mention alcohol in this post I have no desire to open that discussion again. It is simply an issue that works as an example for the point I am trying to make :)
Yes, I didn't mean to open that discussion again, either, though it is a useful example, I agree.

I grow concerned at the implication that hedges imply hypocrisy and pretense.

Good! I'm concerned with that implication, too! :)

I have hedges in my life. But I would hope nobody here would presume to judge that my Christian life is based on pretense because of that.

I have hedges, too, and, like you, I'd hope that nobody would judge me because of them, either. However, the hedges that I have put up were because I know myself, and they are hedges for me - not hedges that I expect everyone to put up, too. There is a big difference between a personal hedge and an institutionalized one, though, don't you agree?

The original question was about what the Church should do regarding purity, and in this context, I'm saying that it would be better for the Church to remove hedges than put up more of them.

I challenge anyone who says they have no hedges and that they just live in the freedom of the spirit. Every single one of us have some type of hedges.

I agree - and sometimes we don't even realize the hedges that we've put up or how we judge people who don't have the same hedge, like where you're going in your next few sentences.

When it comes to alcohol, my hedge is simply abstinence. For many the hedge is moderation.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses abstinence.

And yes, a case could be made that moderation is a biblical hedge and abstinence is not. But from the discussions I've seen here on NazNet, I have observed that Christians who practice moderation in drinking alcohol have each developed their own concept of what moderation means to them. For some, moderate drinking means the occasional glass of wine with a meal. For some moderate drinking means going to wine and pizza parties and drinking with friends once or twice a week. Why do some judge the hedge of abstinence as "hypocritical but view their own hedge to determine moderation as a sign of spiritual freedom?

Why do some judge the hedge of moderation as hypocritical and question the individuals ability to discern what moderation entails, but they view their own hedge of abstinence to be superior?

I'm not saying that YOU do this, but wouldn't you agree that we can look at it this way, too?

One way that purity is shown in the church is in treating each other with grace. So absolutely...those with a hedge should not judge those who don't have the same hedge. But those without that hedge should not judge those with one.

I agree, but what about when the hedge is institutionalized and has become a cultural standard in a particular denomination - it's easier to extend grace when people are following the "rules," isn't it?

There is a woman in our church who has started to go out of her way to make something vegetarian for my daughter when we have potluck dinners. She is not a vegetarian herself and might not even understand why Leisha has decided to be one. But she respects and supports it. People in our church don't mock Leisha's feelings in this matter but neither does Leisha expect everyone to be like her.

That to me is a good example of purity in the church.

That's very cool, and I'm truly glad to hear that, but being a vegetarian usually isn't often looked at as sinful behavior like drinking alcohol has sometimes been.

I agree that some who enjoy the freedom of drinking in moderation have possibly judged those who enjoy the freedom of abstinence; it seems to me that there is a critical difference between enjoying the freedom of abstinence and being a slave to abstinence, wouldn't you agree?

I'm speaking only to the rules or hedges or law as slavery - when the rules, hedges, or law brings freedom, then I have no problem at all.

I suspect for you, Barbara, that your abstinence is lived with freedom, and I think that's great. There's also the plus side that your choice happens to be one of the "rules" in the CotN, but what happens when someone feels those rules make them a slave to the hedge of someone else?

Hans Deventer

11th July 2008, 10:10 AM (10:10)

I have hedges in my life. But I would hope nobody here would presume to judge that my Christian life is based on pretense because of that. There are things that I believe are essential to the Christian walk. If Hans and I were to compare what we believe the essentials are, I think we would be very close. But I also believe that there are non essential hedges that I can put in my life that can be helpful to my Christian walk.

Barbara, it is totally clear that if one is serious in following Jesus, one will put up hedges. I have them myself. The problem is not with those hedges as such, it is with how people as a group deal with them. The hedges very easily become laws, become the measurement by which people are measured, and we end up crucifying the wrong people, even the only Holy One. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new.

Why do some judge the hedge of abstinence as "hypocritical but view their own hedge to determine moderation as a sign of spiritual freedom?

Again, it's not the hedge, it's the dealing with the hedge where the problems arise.

The hedges I've been talking about are the ones that others use to measure you. To decide whether you're "in" or "out".

I'm not talking about the ones you've learned to accept because of respect for the experience of others, or your own experience.

I won't shoot heroin. I never had the experience myself but I've heard and read enough from the experience of others to know that I won't go there. That's a hedge I've put up.

But here's the deal. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite also had hedges. Good, Biblical ones too, they thought. But..... you know the story.

So a hedge is a tool. I can help not having to make difficult decisions all the time. As such, it's good. But it is the purity of the heart behind it that determines if it is useful or sinful to abide by the hedge all the time.

Barbara Moulton

11th July 2008, 10:52 AM (10:52)

I haven't been in holiness churches all my life, but since I have been in a holiness church, I have noticed a tendency for people to think that adhering to a list does make one holy and not adhering to that list makes one unholy - whether that mentality was ever preached or not, it does exist.

I haven't seen this tendancy in a long, long time. Maybe it's different in Canada and in the churches in which I have served. I am not presently Nazarene but I think our little Wesleyan congregation does a pretty good job of presenting the hedges as options that may help in one's spiritual walk but not communicating that they are necessary for holy living. At present, some of those hedges are conditions for covenant membership (but not community membership) and I would like to see this changed. But even if they were changed I don't think it would change the way I live my life at all.

Hedges can be useful, I agree; maybe I'm pushing too hard the other way to make a point, but you're right: they can and do have their place.

Thanks for acknowledging this. In addition to being a vegetarian my 21 year old daughter also abstains from alcohol. This is a decision she has made because she feels it is right for her (with the family history, her personality and what she has observed alcohol do to her fellow university students). In her life this hedge serves a good purpose and I would be extremely miffed if anyone in the church denigrated her position as being legalistic and hypocritical.

I have hedges, too, and, like you, I'd hope that nobody would judge me because of them, either. However, the hedges that I have put up were because I know myself, and they are hedges for me - not hedges that I expect everyone to put up, too. There is a big difference between a personal hedge and an institutionalized one, though, don't you agree?

Absolutely. But just as those with hedges can err and think those who don't think the same as them are sinning, so those without the hedges can err and make the assumption that all those with hedges are legalists who expect others to follow their lead. We aren't :)

The original question was about what the Church should do regarding purity, and in this context, I'm saying that it would be better for the Church to remove hedges than put up more of them.

I agree. But we need to do this in a way which doesn't imply that everyone with hedges has got it all wrong. That was the drift that I thought I saw in this thread and that was what I was responding too.

My illustration about vegetarianism was meant to show how I think a pure church would operate with all people. Teaching that the Holy Spirit gives us freedom in our lives but also finding ways to help and affirm those who do need to find hedges in their life.

I would also like to think that if I see someone struggling with an issue that I think could be helped by them having a hedge, that I could suggest it without being accused of being a legalist. :)

I agree - and sometimes we don't even realize the hedges that we've put up or how we judge people who don't have the same hedge,..

Thanks for recognizing this.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses abstinence.

I accept this but I sometimes get the feeling that you are "puzzled" by people who choose abstinence because of your own belief that God has given us alcohol as a gift to be enjoyed. :)

Why do some judge the hedge of moderation as hypocritical and question the individuals ability to discern what moderation entails, but they view their own hedge of abstinence to be superior? I'm not saying that YOU do this, but wouldn't you agree that we can look at it this way, too? ?

Yes we can. And probably historically that problem has existed more than the one that I have tried to caution against. But the history of many movements is that they react against something but then swing back and begin to look very similiar to what they reacted against. And we needed a movement against legalism but we don't want to become a church that turns around and judges all the good and true and since Christians who have made choices that differ from ours as hypocrites.

That's very cool, and I'm truly glad to hear that, but being a vegetarian usually isn't often looked at as sinful behavior like drinking alcohol has sometimes been.?

I think you misunderstood my point. I was primarily using this as an example of how people who have freedom in an area should treat those who don't have freedom in an area. The attitude of those at the potluck who are not vegetarians is one of affirmation and respect and support. That's what I believe a pure church should model.

I agree that some who enjoy the freedom of drinking in moderation have possibly judged those who enjoy the freedom of abstinence; it seems to me that there is a critical difference between enjoying the freedom of abstinence and being a slave to abstinence, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely...but there is also a danger of becoming a slave to the idea of freedom. So determined to prove that God gives us freedom in all areas that we run right over those with genuine differences.

I'm speaking only to the rules or hedges or law as slavery - when the rules, hedges, or law brings freedom, then I have no problem at all.

At the end of it all, this shows the answer. Freedom has nothing to do with whether we have hedges or not. Freedom has everything to do with why we have the hedges and how we treat those who have different hedges than us. A pure church affirms people in this freedom, respects the choices that arise out of that freedom but also gives guidance. Should the church simply say "....you are all free to do whatever you want to do..."? With no accountability or collective conscience?

I suspect for you, Barbara, that your abstinence is lived with freedom, and I think that's great. There's also the plus side that your choice happens to be one of the "rules" in the CotN, but what happens when someone feels those rules make them a slave to the hedge of someone else?

Well, like I said, I am not a member of the CoftN but my church does have the same rules.

Maybe I'm just weird but I think this Coke Zero commercial has relevance to how these things should be handled in the body of Christ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L6wh-Ufvro&feature=related

Jamie Wayne

11th July 2008, 11:36 AM (11:36)

I haven't seen this tendancy in a long, long time. Maybe it's different in Canada and in the churches in which I have served.

Maybe there's more Fundamentalism and its offshoots down here than up there.

I accept this but I sometimes get the feeling that you are "puzzled" by people who choose abstinence because of your own belief that God has given us alcohol as a gift to be enjoyed. :)

No, I'm not puzzled by people who choose abstinence. For some, abstinence is NECESSARY.

My problem is when abstinence is mandated and freedom restricted.

Absolutely...but there is also a danger of becoming a slave to the idea of freedom. So determined to prove that God gives us freedom in all areas that we run right over those with genuine differences.

Yes, but rules mandating abstinence run right over the freedom of those with genuine differences, too, so determined that abstinence will solve peoples problems rather than promoting right relationships which, if properly practiced, would make the need for a mandated abstinence irrelevant.

At the end of it all, this shows the answer. Freedom has nothing to do with whether we have hedges or not. Freedom has everything to do with why we have the hedges and how we treat those who have different hedges than us. A pure church affirms people in this freedom, respects the choices that arise out of that freedom but also gives guidance. I don't want to see a church that simply says "....you are all free to do whatever you want to do..."...as if the collective conscience has no value at all.

I agree that freedom has nothing to do with whether we have hedges or not, per se; freedom does have everything to do with why we have the hedges - or, why not, I might add - but, if we mandate hedges, then what room is there for a particular denomination to respect with freedom someone who doesn't subscribe to the mandated hedge?

Can I be a "good Nazarene" if I don't follow Nazarene rules? It doesn't seem like there is the freedom to do that, and I find that problematic.

I don't want to not become a Nazarene so that I can be free from Nazarene rules, or, having become a Nazarene, decide to give up membership so that I can be free from Nazarene rules.

I agree that the Church can't tell people to do whatever they want, because freedom has limits. It would be better, in my opinion, for the Church to describe the limits of freedom rather than prescribe how not to exceed those limits.

Barbara Moulton

11th July 2008, 11:49 AM (11:49)

It would be better, in my opinion, for the Church to describe the limits of freedom rather than prescribe how not to exceed those limits.

I agree.

So how do you describe the "limits of freedom"? Because I'm sure the phrase seems paradoxical to many.

Blessings,
Barbara

Ramesh Deosarran

11th July 2008, 12:15 PM (12:15)

Response to Hans

I did not suggest a list. When you said “We'd be stuck with what really matters” suggests to some degree a list. If that was not your intent, then I made a mistake. The Manual already has a lot of do this and don’t do that.

I am saying that the hedges are helpful and useful if applied appropriately. I do not see them as a to do list. I see them as guidance.

Paul was not giving an open invitation to drink alcohol. The context of Paul must be carefully considered. So I don’t have to tell people to get drunk. I encourage total abstinence because it is beneficial to the Christian life and helpful to moral judgment. It is true that Jesus turned water into wine. I do not tell people to go drink wine because there is not enough water or juice. Again, the context is important. It is necessary to carefully consider man’s inadequacies and Christ sufficiency in this context.

You asked, “Did Jesus abuse alcohol when He turned water into wine? Did Paul encourage Timothy to abuse wine? Where is the distinction?” The distinction is very simple. Consider the context and reality. Also, who is your congregation is Jesus? Who is Paul or Timothy?

Based on your doctrine alcohol is a gift of God and we should give thanks to God for it. Unfortunately, that celebration gets very high sometimes and has proven to be very destructive. Where there is alcohol, there is the lack of mature judgment.

If you think it is fine to take alcohol without abusing it, then ignore the hedge and encourage the use of alcohol. Without considering the context of what Paul said and what Jesus did you have scriptural support. This is a hedge I would rather keep because it is helpful to Christian conduct, ethics, character, and moral judgment. I would not want someone given to alcohol serve on the Church Board, teach a Sunday School class, or lead the singing, serve as an associate, preach for me, serve as DS, serve as GS, and all in between.

I agree that the issue is greater than alcohol, guns, and pregnancy. Education is a necessary consideration and maybe it should be part of the hedges. That is, teaching the reason for the hedges. I am not tied to hedges. Surprisingly, I did not bring up “hedges.” This was a burning issue for someone else.

Ramesh Deosarran

11th July 2008, 12:23 PM (12:23)

Response to Jamie

Since you did not pastor and never taught on this level, I am pleased to enlighten you. Maybe you should start by going to your pastor and ask him/her to explain the “hedges” to you. You have a ranting attitude toward them. Then suggest that you would like to take few drinks because it is good for the heart/soul and would like to preach. I am curious about the answer but I am not holding my breath.

I agree with you that holiness is about people. However, people have impulses, urges, and drives. These are not necessarily bad in themselves. Yet, they contribute to one’s Christian ethics. The same impulses, urges, and drives that can lead you to church and conduct the ethical and merciful can lead you to the destruction of life.
Let me emphasize that I am not proposing a list. You are hung up on a “list” as you are on “hedges.” Holiness is not rooted on a list or hedges. Let us stay with the “hedges” in the Manual for a while. None may be sinful in themselves. However, all can be occasion for sin if they are not in line with the ideals for Christlikeness.

We are not on the same level in maturation. Therefore, the aspect of self-control and self-discipline would vary. As a pastor it is important to know where your people are in their growth as much as possible. You minister to people where they are and help them to grow closer to Christ and not a list or hedges. It is also important to note that people are instinctively in love with self. If we fail to educate people in the fundamental essentials for Christian living selfishness is present in everything they do.

I know you are against list/hedges but I will give you one anyway. It describes the basic function of the church:
1. Teaching commitment
2. Build relationship
3. Encourage personal devotion
4. Education
5. Develop organization
6. Enlist and train
7. Develop righteous living
8. Encourage community service
9. Encourage working with other Christians
10. Develop a consciousness for God

Here is a list from Frank McKibben in “Christian Education, Through the Church.”
1. Interpret religion
2. Provide worship and training in devotional life
3. Promote and enrich fellowship of Christians
4. Extend fellowship to include other people
5. Provide incentive, training, and opportunity for individuals to improve society
6. Assist individuals
7. Enlist and train individuals for the local church, community, and world
8. Maintain a wholesome and effective institutional life

Your questions were too easy. I hope they are answered anyway.

Laurie Florence

11th July 2008, 12:44 PM (12:44)

Ramesh

Hi. This is an interesting topic.

I am no theologian, but as far as I understand, the core of holiness is love - hedges or no hedges.

I believe that it is love for God and our neighbours that is the path to purity in the church.

I always try to remember this, and treat others accordingly.

Jamie Wayne

11th July 2008, 01:28 PM (13:28)

I agree.

So how do you describe the "limits of freedom"? Because I'm sure the phrase seems paradoxical to many.

Blessings,
Barbara

Let me think about that, and give time for others to, too. That is a very good question, though.

Hans Deventer

11th July 2008, 01:42 PM (13:42)

I am saying that the hedges are helpful and useful if applied appropriately. I do not see them as a to do list. I see them as guidance.

That's great, so do I. Unfortunately, the General Assembly disagrees with both of us. I remember the discussions relating to the change from "Rules" to "Covenant". That wasn't intended to make sound them less like laws.
I'm not fighting windmills, you know.

You asked, “Did Jesus abuse alcohol when He turned water into wine? Did Paul encourage Timothy to abuse wine? Where is the distinction?”

No, I did not. I don't know where you got that from.

Hans Deventer

11th July 2008, 01:48 PM (13:48)

So how do you describe the "limits of freedom"?

Well, God is free, right? But not free to go against His love. Likewise, our freedom in Christ can never mean that I would go contrary to love.

Barbara Moulton

11th July 2008, 01:49 PM (13:49)

Barbara, it is totally clear that if one is serious in following Jesus, one will put up hedges. I have them myself. The problem is not with those hedges as such, it is with how people as a group deal with them. The hedges very easily become laws, become the measurement by which people are measured, and we end up crucifying the wrong people, even the only Holy One. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new..

Absolutely. But the words that initially brought me into this thread were these:

"If you abide with the hedges, no one will care if you don't. It looks great from the outside. You can easily be a "whitewashed tomb". But without them, you have to live the experience, there is no pretending anymore."

You seemed to move beyond the concern of a group to imply something about individual hedges. There seemed to be some measurement going on...implying that those who have hedges are the pretenders. I might have misunderstood you.

So a hedge is a tool. I can help not having to make difficult decisions all the time. As such, it's good. But it is the purity of the heart behind it that determines if it is useful or sinful to abide by the hedge all the time.

But of course, it also the purity of heart that determines if it is useful or sinful to exercise one's freedom all the time.

1 Corinthians 10:23, 24
"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others."

The Church I would like to see is one that takes hedges out of membership requirements but which yet acknowledges their value for both individuals and groups. It is a church which emphasizes freedom but teaches how to use that freedom wisely. It is a church that also encourages indivduals to put the good of others above their own sense of freedom.

Jamie Wayne

11th July 2008, 01:51 PM (13:51)

Paul was not giving an open invitation to drink alcohol. The context of Paul must be carefully considered. So I don’t have to tell people to get drunk. I encourage total abstinence because it is beneficial to the Christian life and helpful to moral judgment. It is true that Jesus turned water into wine. I do not tell people to go drink wine because there is not enough water or juice. Again, the context is important. It is necessary to carefully consider man’s inadequacies and Christ sufficiency in this context.

You asked, “Did Jesus abuse alcohol when He turned water into wine? Did Paul encourage Timothy to abuse wine? Where is the distinction?” The distinction is very simple. Consider the context and reality.

The context at the wedding, where Jesus' performed His first reported miracle, was a celebration where the wine had run out. It wasn't because they were out of water or juice.

The context for Paul's message to Timothy was medicinal, in a sense, that drinking wine was safer than drinking water that was unsettling his stomach.

I know the context.

Also, who in your congregation is Jesus? Who is Paul or Timothy?How is that relevant? Were Paul and Timothy superhuman or otherwise different than me or you?

Based on your doctrine alcohol is a gift of God and we should give thanks to God for it. Unfortunately, that celebration gets very high sometimes and has proven to be very destructive. Where there is alcohol, there is the lack of mature judgment.So when they ran out of wine at the wedding, Jesus made more...therefore, He was the cause of this "lack of mature judgment."

If you think it is fine to take alcohol without abusing it, then ignore the hedge and encourage the use of alcohol.I am not encouraging the use of alcohol, I am suggesting that there need not be such a strict hedge around drinking alcohol, that we ought not have a higher standard of purity than Jesus did, nor ought we demand more "holiness" than Jesus did, nor ought we forbid Jesus from the things that He did.

Without considering the context of what Paul said and what Jesus did you have scriptural support.Are you forgetting the context of the wedding celebration - that it was a celebration, and the amount of wine that they originally had wasn't enough, so Jesus made more???

This is a hedge I would rather keep because it is helpful to Christian conduct, ethics, character, and moral judgment. I would not want someone given to alcohol serve on the Church Board, teach a Sunday School class, or lead the singing, serve as an associate, preach for me, serve as DS, serve as GS, and all in between.So Jesus couldn't serve on your Board, teach your CE class, lead your singing, serve as an associate, preach for you, serve as your DS, serve as GS, and all in between, but He can be your LORD? Or, was Jesus not "given" to alcohol?

Surprisingly, I did not bring up “hedges.” This was a burning issue for someone else.Correct, your issue was about the purity of the Church, and what "demands" should be made.

Response to Jamie

Since you did not pastor and never taught on this level, I am pleased to enlighten you.

Thank you, and believe me, I am certainly not the best at thinking pastorally; I'm much more guided by general philosophical and theological principles than by pastoral concerns - I'll certainly own up to that.

Maybe you should start by going to your pastor and ask him/her to explain the “hedges” to you. You have a ranting attitude toward them. Then suggest that you would like to take few drinks because it is good for the heart/soul and would like to preach. I am curious about the answer but I am not holding my breath.Would it surprise you that the issue of these hedges is a topic often spoken about from the clergy at the church that I attend?

Let me emphasize that I am not proposing a list. You are hung up on a “list” as you are on “hedges.” Holiness is not rooted on a list or hedges. Let us stay with the “hedges” in the Manual for a while. None may be sinful in themselves. However, all can be occasion for sin if they are not in line with the ideals for Christlikeness.And yet Christ would be breaking those Nazarene rules were He to turn water into wine, so you tell me, what is not in line with the ideals for Christ-like-ness?

We are not on the same level in maturation.I would say that a more mature person would need fewer and fewer hedges.

Your questions were too easy. I hope they are answered anyway.

Hans Deventer

11th July 2008, 02:10 PM (14:10)

Absolutely. But the words that initially brought me into this thread were these:

"If you abide with the hedges, no one will care if you don't. It looks great from the outside. You can easily be a "whitewashed tomb". But without them, you have to live the experience, there is no pretending anymore."

Yes. That, to me, is the danger of hedges. They can so easily conceal. But without the hedges people impose on others, reality shines through. Kind of like the question, "who are you when no one is looking?"

You seemed to move beyond the concern of a group to imply something about individual hedges. There seemed to be some measurement going on...implying that those who have hedges are the pretenders. I might have misunderstood you.

Hedges are dangerous, yes. That's the problem Jesus had with the Pharisees. That's what I meant.

But of course, it also the purity of heart that determines if it is useful or sinful to exercise one's freedom all the time.

Yes.

The Church I would like to see is one that takes hedges out of membership requirements but which yet acknowledges their value for both individuals and groups. It is a church which emphasizes freedom but teaches how to use that freedom wisely. It is a church that also encourages individuals to put the good of others above their own sense of freedom.

Amen.

Jamie Wayne

11th July 2008, 02:15 PM (14:15)

Well, God is free, right? But not free to go against His love. Likewise, our freedom in Christ can never mean that I would go contrary to love.

Likewise the Augustianian notion of non posse peccare suggests that "in" heaven we will be so totally free as to be unable to sin! What freedom!

Hans Deventer

11th July 2008, 02:26 PM (14:26)

Likewise the Augustianian notion of non posse peccare suggests that "in" heaven we will be so totally free as to be unable to sin! What freedom!

I don't believe Augustine is right about that, but I do believe we will be free from temptation.

Jamie Wayne

11th July 2008, 02:40 PM (14:40)

I'm not sure that I totally buy it, either, but it is useful sometimes.

Think of it as a scale, on the one hand is our ability to sin and on the other hand is our ability not to sin.

Total depravity means that the weight of sin has burdened the scale such that we cannot, on our own, choose not to sin. It's still our choice to sin, but we aren't free not to sin.

The opposite would be, instead of being weighed down by sin, grace is tipping the scale so much that we aren't free to sin.

It's like lifting an elephant; I'm free to try, but I'm doomed to fail by my own strength alone. "In" heaven, the opposite would be the case, where enabled by grace it would be impossible for me to sin because the scale is tipped so far in the other direction that I could sooner lift an elephant on my own.

Ramesh Deosarran

11th July 2008, 04:28 PM (16:28)

Jamie, you are looking at the immediate truth. Yes, Jesus turned water into wine. What is the larger theological framework or wider truth?

Back up a little:
Mary told the servants to do what Jesus said to them. Why?
There were 6 water pots. What did they signify?
Once you figure that out, what is the significance of the wine?
So there was no more wine! Jesus turned water into wine. What does that represent?
Now, what is the initial purpose of the miracle?
What is the theological significance of water and wine?

If you had considered the text carefully, you would not say, “The context at the wedding, where Jesus' performed His first reported miracle, was a celebration where the wine had run out.” Clearly, this tells me that you did not consider the context.

In I Timothy 3:3 Paul told Timothy “not given to wine” (some translation says “much wine”). You said, “The context for Paul's message to Timothy was medicinal, in a sense, that drinking wine was safer than drinking water that was unsettling his stomach.” How did you extrapolate this? Where is the anecdotal evidence?

You said, “I am certainly not the best at thinking pastorally; I'm much more guided by general philosophical and theological principles than by pastoral concerns - I'll certainly own up to that.” With this significant claim, you should be able to see why none in your congregation is Jesus, Paul or Timothy.

You said that the issues of hedges are spoken about by the clergy at the church you attend. I am glad that I did not hold my breath. Maybe this is the reason why you are ranting so much about hedges.

Jamie, you just do not understand the theological framework of water turned into wine. Jesus would not be breaking Nazarene rules. Holiness is not about list and hedges.

When I said that we are not on the same level of maturation, I was not talking about the two of us. I am referring to human beings. Besides, I am not fussing about hedges. You are!

For someone who claims guidance through philosophical and theological principles, I am surprised that you would say, “So when they ran out of wine at the wedding, Jesus made more...therefore, He was the cause of this "lack of mature judgment." Human beings will always be insufficient but this insufficiency is met by the sufficiency of Christ.

Okay! You are not encouraging the use of alcohol. Great! The hedge is there for those who need it. It is not about us have more purity that Jesus. It is not that we have more holiness than Jesus.

Yes! There was wine and then there was no wine and then there was the best wine. Please find out what this means.

If you are referring to a Jesus who was a drunk or given to alcohol, then he could not be my Lord, serve on my board, teach my CE class, be an associate, be my pastor, DS; GS. However, here is the good news – He was not a drunk and given to alcohol. Thus, He is my Lord.

Jamie Wayne

11th July 2008, 04:56 PM (16:56)

Jamie, you are looking at the immediate truth. Yes, Jesus turned water into wine. What is the larger theological framework or wider truth?

Back up a little:
Mary told the servants to do what Jesus said to them. Why?
There were 6 water pots. What did they signify?
Once you figure that out, what is the significance of the wine?
So there was no more wine! Jesus turned water into wine. What does that represent?
Now, what is the initial purpose of the miracle?
What is the theological significance of water and wine?

If you had considered the text carefully, you would not say, “The context at the wedding, where Jesus' performed His first reported miracle, was a celebration where the wine had run out.” Clearly, this tells me that you did not consider the context.

Why don't you enlighten me, please?

In I Timothy 3:3 Paul told Timothy “not given to wine” (some translation says “much wine”). You said, “The context for Paul's message to Timothy was medicinal, in a sense, that drinking wine was safer than drinking water that was unsettling his stomach.” How did you extrapolate this? Where is the anecdotal evidence? Why do you propose Paul told Timothy to drink wine?

You said, “I am certainly not the best at thinking pastorally; I'm much more guided by general philosophical and theological principles than by pastoral concerns - I'll certainly own up to that.” With this significant claim, you should be able to see why none in your congregation is Jesus, Paul or Timothy.None in the congregation that I am part of are you, either.

You said that the issues of hedges are spoken about by the clergy at the church you attend. I am glad that I did not hold my breath. Maybe this is the reason why you are ranting so much about hedges.I have always had these problems with hedges, but I had not previously been a member of a church with such a legalistic background, so it was never much of an issue for me.

Jamie, you just do not understand the theological framework of water turned into wine. Jesus would not be breaking Nazarene rules.Could you please enlighten me, then?

Holiness is not about list and hedges. I agree, and that's what I've been saying.

When I said that we are not on the same level of maturation, I was not talking about the two of us. I am referring to human beings. Besides, I am not fussing about hedges. You are!I understand, but do we put up hedges for all that only some need?

For someone who claims guidance through philosophical and theological principles, I am surprised that you would say, “So when they ran out of wine at the wedding, Jesus made more...therefore, He was the cause of this "lack of mature judgment." Human beings will always be insufficient but this insufficiency is met by the sufficiency of Christ.Yes, I agree, and Christ made sure that there was sufficient wine.

Okay! You are not encouraging the use of alcohol. Great! The hedge is there for those who need it. It is not about us have more purity that Jesus. It is not that we have more holiness than Jesus.If the hedge is there for those who need it, then why should it apply to those who don't need it?

Yes! There was wine and then there was no wine and then there was the best wine. Please find out what this means.Don't even try to tell me that the best wine is wine without alcohol, because that's the most ridiculous argument that I've ever heard.

If you are referring to a Jesus who was a drunk or given to alcohol, then he could not be my Lord, serve on my board, teach my CE class, be an associate, be my pastor, DS; GS. However, here is the good news – He was not a drunk and given to alcohol. Thus, He is my Lord.Of course, but then what does "given" to alcohol mean? If it means being a "drunk," then I agree with you that we ought not have leaders who are drunkards and alcoholics. However, Jesus probably drank 4 glasses of wine (at least) every year at the Passover sedar; does that make Him ineligible to be your LORD? No, then why would it make me ineligible to be a leader if it doesn't make Him ineligible?

Crystal Lutton

11th July 2008, 05:57 PM (17:57)

Based on your doctrine alcohol is a gift of God and we should give thanks to God for it. Unfortunately, that celebration gets very high sometimes and has proven to be very destructive. Where there is alcohol, there is the lack of mature judgment.This is just not true. And it's contrary to what we find in Scripture. Alcohol is a gift from the Lord--its use in the Passover is from Him. Turning the water into wine was from him and, honestly, all of the "hidden meanings" in the story may be great but they don't change the fact that he did what he did. I can understand choosing abstinence as a personal conviction and as a guideline for those who struggle with alcohol or have an addictive personality in other areas or a family history . . . but as a general rule it's just not supportable with Scripture. If you go to the verses cited in the COTN manual you won't even find support for it.

It was the hedges of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned. Why do we think our hedges are supported by him? The personal hedges that one erects are moral guidelines that help us navigate life. The externally imposed ones that are generic and become what Jesus referred to as a burden to the people can't possibly be good in any generation.

Jamie Wayne

11th July 2008, 06:21 PM (18:21)

This is just not true. And it's contrary to what we find in Scripture. Alcohol is a gift from the Lord--its use in the Passover is from Him.

Thank you!

Psalm 104:14 -15

14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth 15 and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart.

And, during the Passover sedar, isn't the heart gladdened?

Dayenu!

Turning the water into wine was from him and, honestly, all of the "hidden meanings" in the story may be great but they don't change the fact that he did what he did.

I agree. Either Jesus turned water into alcohol or He didn't.

I can understand choosing abstinence as a personal conviction and as a guideline for those who struggle with alcohol or have an addictive personality in other areas or a family history . . . but as a general rule it's just not supportable with Scripture.

I agree. It's just not supported in Scripture whatsoever.

If you go to the verses cited in the COTN manual you won't even find support for it.

Again, it couldn't be any clearer, really.

It was the hedges of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned. Why do we think our hedges are supported by him? The personal hedges that one erects are moral guidelines that help us navigate life. The externally imposed ones that are generic and become what Jesus referred to as a burden to the people can't possibly be good in any generation.

Hallelujah!

Alcohol is a healthy part of Jewish culture and ritual, just as alcohol traditionally has been part of the Christian culture and tradition, too, most notably in the LORD's Supper, which most agree was a Passover sedar.

Dayenu!

It would have been enough that He delivered us from Egypt, but He also saw that more wine was needed at a wedding nearly 2000 years ago. It would have been enough that He provided more wine, but He went on to provide us with so much more.

Jesus broke the hedge around the Sabbath by healing on it, so why do we put up more hedges?

Man was not created for alcohol; alcohol was created for man. ;)

Sorry...I couldn't resist. I really do acknowledge how destructive alcohol can be; I'm simply trying to point out how destructive hedges can be, too. After all, they crucified Our LORD because He didn't obey the hedges: how dare He heal on the Sabbath!

Barbara Moulton

11th July 2008, 06:43 PM (18:43)

Psalm 104:14 -15

I think I'll stick with Psalm 4:6-8. :)

Jamie Wayne

11th July 2008, 07:27 PM (19:27)

Doesn't that passage imply that the new wine brought joy with it, thus giving further evidence that such joy wasn't hedged out?

Thank you!:)

Seriously, that is a nice passage. I love so many of the Psalms.

Barukh ata Adonai, Eloheinu Melekh ha-olam, borei peri ha-gafen!!!

Barbara Moulton

11th July 2008, 08:36 PM (20:36)

Doesn't that passage imply that the new wine brought joy with it, thus giving further evidence that such joy wasn't hedged out?

Of course. Mind you, some of that joy might be mitigated by all the warnings in Proverbs about drinking wine.

"hedged out"? Hmmm...interesting turn of phrase.

Odd thing is that, despite the fact that we've talked alot about hedges in this thread, that's only because I picked up on it from your posts. I've never really used the term at all up until this point.

Crystal Lutton

12th July 2008, 02:49 AM (02:49)

Prov 31:6-7 is too often left out of this discussion

6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing,
And wine to those who are bitter of heart.
7 Let him drink and forget his poverty,
And remember his misery no more.

Laurie Florence

12th July 2008, 10:14 AM (10:14)

Prov 31:6-7 is too often left out of this discussion

I think I understand what you are saying, Crystal. However, in the context of this discussion, the way I read this passage convinces me that, as a christian, I don't need to drink.

I am reading words like: perishing, bitter of heart, poverty and misery. Since I have Jesus, these words do not describe me.

Of course, as I said earlier, I am no theologian ... LOL

Barbara Moulton

12th July 2008, 10:41 AM (10:41)

Prov 31:6-7 is too often left out of this discussion

But of course, they didn't have many options as we do back then did they? As chaplain, I am aware of the many drugs that we have available to ease pain and suffering at the end of life. If I was in that situation and for some reason those drugs weren't availalable, I would probably ask for some strong drink too.

I see these verses as an acknowledgement of the medicinal value of alcohol. But I am sure that you are not suggesting that we should tell the person today who is depressed to go drink and forget their problems? (Edited to add: I hadn't seen Laurie's observation before I wrote this post but I think she has a powerful insight)

The reality is that if I had been raised in a different faith I might drink. And my initial choice (at 14) was really just about making the committment that I needed to make to become a member of the church, and yes...because that is what I thought God wanted for all Christians. 35 years later I of course don't believe that. I haven't believed it for a long, long time. But still, abstinence simply "is what it is" for me. A part of who I am...not even a hedge anymore, simply a reality of my life and a committment in my spiritual walk.

If I had been raised in Biblical times I'm sure I would have used alcohol. But I don't live in Biblical times so I have to look at Scripture and say, "What does God want for Barbara Moulton today?"

So what do I see in Scripture? Overall..a belief that alcohol is a gift from God...yes. But with that is there not an implication that, it should be used in a manner that honours Him? So we see examples of things that go wrong because of drunkeness, warnings against alcohol abuse, teachings on moderate and responsible use, acknowledgement of medicinal properties and yes, recommendation for abstinence in some circumstances for some people. (see below)

I look at the world today...where alcohol abuse has torn apart countless family, resulted in violence, theft and assault, countless deaths on our roads and personal tragedies. To me...nothing has changed from the Biblical teaching.

We need to continue to teach the importance of moderate use, see alcohol as something to be used in a manner that would honour God and encourage, bless and affirm those who believe they should abstain.

Fortunately, the choice for abstinence is becoming easier and easier in society. People seem to understand abstinence more (maybe because of AA) But ironically, in recent years, the most opposition that I have felt towards my position has not been with the people I socialize with on a regular basis. It's been here...within the context of a Christian community which has traditionally valued abstinence.

Go figure. :)

Now...I have probably said enough on this subject considering I said I didn't want to discuss it. My plea is that whatever happens in holiness churches, we will continue to see the choice for abstinence as a valuable option. That we will affirm, not denigrate those who make it. We will only challenge legalistic attitudes towards alcohol not lump all abstainers together as legalists. And that those who drink will always look to the good of others in exercising that freedom.

Blessings,
Barbara

Proverbs 31:4-8

4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel—
not for kings to drink wine,
not for rulers to crave beer,

5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees,
and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.

6 Give beer to those who are perishing,
wine to those who are in anguish;

7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.

8 "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.

Marsha Lynn

13th July 2008, 07:56 AM (07:56)

The Church is pure but not all in the Church is pure. At the harvest the pure will be separated from the impure. The Church does not always do the right thing and yet it is the Holy Catholic Church. Its head is Jesus Christ.

What kind of demand should be set up in order to maintain the purity of the Church?

The question seems to assume that at least some people need external prompting in order to become pure. I would submit that more people need external example in order to become pure. In that case, the demand required to spread (rather than maintain) purity in the church is on ourselves to set the example. And that purity traces back to love for God and our neighbors.

As far as prompting toward purity, my experience is that there needs to be much room left for the gentle, yet insistent, internal prompting of the Holy Spirit in all of our conversation.

I'm reminded of a scene from long ago. I was playing a game such as "Animal Rummy." I don't remember who all was playing; probably my mother was in the group. My father walked through the room and said, "What? My children playing cards?" Then he walked on.

Forty years or more later, I still remember that comment. It takes so very little to plant the idea that an activity might need to be considered for its appropriateness. The Spirit is surely able to take it from there.

Marsha
(who in these evil latter days plays card games with "face cards" but understands the "hedge around a hedge" concept that would prompt some to refrain from doing so)

Barbara Moulton

13th July 2008, 08:32 AM (08:32)

Forty years or more later, I still remember that comment. It takes so very little to plant the idea that an activity might need to be considered for its appropriateness. The Spirit is surely able to take it from there.

I remember when I was graduating from Grade 6, my friend invited me to her cottage for a week. My parents agreed that I could go but my dad reminded me that on the Sunday, I should make sure I read my Bible and...of course...not go swimming.

It was a scorcher that Sunday. The lake was just outside the front door of the cottage. But I sat on the dock, while everyone else was in the water. I think that was when I first began to question whether every guideline was Spirit led :)

Hans Deventer

13th July 2008, 08:34 AM (08:34)

I remember when I was graduating from Grade 6, my friend invited me to her cottage for a week. My parents agreed that I could go but my dad reminded me that on the Sunday, I should make sure I read my Bible and...of course...not go swimming.

It was a scorcher that Sunday. The lake was just outside the front door of the cottage. But I sat on the dock, while everyone else was in the water. I think that was when I first began to question whether every guideline was Spirit led :)

We had the same! Although I think for my parents, it was the idea that we only had a swimmingpool near and if we went there, people would have to work for us on a Sunday. I don't think they had problems with swimming in natural water.

Marsha Lynn

13th July 2008, 08:36 AM (08:36)

The Church is pure but not all in the Church is pure. At the harvest the pure will be separated from the impure. The Church does not always do the right thing and yet it is the Holy Catholic Church. Its head is Jesus Christ.

What kind of demand should be set up in order to maintain the purity of the Church?

More thoughts.

The only way to have a pure church is to cut off those who detract from its purity. Yet, in your drive for a pure church, you need to consider that if we're to make disciples, we, the pure and holy, need to bring in and make disciples out of impure people, training them to be like us. Thus, not only do you need to set a standard for purity, but you also need a timeline for those who have yet to reach that bar. How long can someone be associated with the church before they must achieve purity or leave? Does the time vary depending on the amount of impurity in their lives? What percentage of the church shall we allow to be below the bar? If we get too many new people coming in will our purity be overwhelmed? Should we set up quotas to limit the number of potentially impure people joining us in any given amount of time?

It seems to me that loving people, even though it can be quite challenging, is still easier than setting the bar and the timetable and doing routine spiritual evaluations to see whether it's time for someone to be given a deadline for reaching purity and then jettisoned from the fellowship.

I wonder what the deadline would be for purging oneself of all pride, resentment, bitterness, selfish ambition, and love of gossip? Who will be left after the deadline for these vices arrives? I think I had better carefully cover over any remnants of such vices in my own life for fear of being among the expelled. So much for vulnerability.

I hope these words don't carry an offensive tone with them. I'm simply musing on a Sunday morning about the possible outcome of trying to maintain some level of purity in the church by human means.

Marsha

Barbara Moulton

13th July 2008, 08:41 AM (08:41)

We had the same! Although I think for my parents, it was the idea that we only had a swimmingpool near and if we went there, people would have to work for us on a Sunday. I don't think they had problems with swimming in natural water.

It must have been the concept of physical exertion on Sunday that made it a no-no for my parents because I can remember going to a restaurant on a Sunday.

Hans Deventer

13th July 2008, 08:45 AM (08:45)

It must have been the concept of physical exertion on Sunday that made it a no-no for my parents because I can remember going to a restaurant on a Sunday.

That's what we would never have done. Don't you love those rules?

Hans Deventer

13th July 2008, 08:48 AM (08:48)

More thoughts.

The only way to have a pure church is to cut off those who detract from its purity. Yet, in your drive for a pure church, you need to consider that if we're to make disciples, we, the pure and holy, need to bring in and make disciples out of impure people, training them to be like us. Thus, not only do you need to set a standard for purity, but you also need a timeline for those who have yet to reach that bar. How long can someone be associated with the church before they must achieve purity or leave? Does the time vary depending on the amount of impurity in their lives? What percentage of the church shall we allow to be below the bar? If we get too many new people coming in will our purity be overwhelmed? Should we set up quotas to limit the number of potentially impure people joining us in any given amount of time?

It seems to me that loving people, even though it can be quite challenging, is still easier than setting the bar and the timetable and doing routine spiritual evaluations to see whether it's time for someone to be given a deadline for reaching purity and then jettisoned from the fellowship.

I wonder what the deadline would be for purging oneself of all pride, resentment, bitterness, selfish ambition, and love of gossip? Who will be left after the deadline for these vices arrives? I think I had better carefully cover over any remnants of such vices in my own life for fear of being among the expelled. So much for vulnerability.

I hope these words don't carry an offensive tone with them. I'm simply musing on a Sunday morning about the possible outcome of trying to maintain some level of purity in the church by human means.

Marsha

I don't like people who quote entire posts. But I'm going to do it this time. Marsha, I've said it before but I guess it's not a sin to say it again: I just love your well thought (though that's a redundant phrase) contributions. And this one is as good as any, or better.

Randy Wise

13th July 2008, 10:13 AM (10:13)

I would think that the only one who has standing to make such a demand is the Head of the Church - not us, so let me rephrase the question: what were (are) the demands of Jesus regarding the purity of the Church?

The head of the church did have both positive and negative things to say to seven churches. That testimony can be found in the book of Rev. Jesus doesn't appear to be weak in dealing with sin. The church has to balance purity with grace. If the offense is great and loud some action should be taken as Paul did at corinth. 1 Corinthians 5:1 Where that line should be drawn is debatable.

Randy

Hans Deventer

13th July 2008, 10:51 AM (10:51)

Jesus doesn't appear to be weak in dealing with sin.

I'm not sure if the way Jesus deals with sin has anything to do with what we consider weak or tough.

First of all, He wilfully died because of our sin. Not quite weak by any measure.
Secondly, He continuously confronted the Pharisees who liked to keep the nation pure.

Again, it doesn't look like He fits our categories. As far as I can see, the church has never been able to love the sinner and hate the sin like our Lord has. We're always either weak or tough (at least according to someone's perception).

I'm submitting the idea that those words are unrelated to Jesus' behaviour.

Randy Wise

13th July 2008, 11:27 AM (11:27)

I'm not sure if the way Jesus deals with sin has anything to do with what we consider weak or tough.

First of all, He wilfully died because of our sin. Not quite weak by any measure.
Secondly, He continuously confronted the Pharisees who liked to keep the nation pure.

Again, it doesn't look like He fits our categories. As far as I can see, the church has never been able to love the sinner and hate the sin like our Lord has. We're always either weak or tough (at least according to someone's perception).

I'm submitting the idea that those words are unrelated to Jesus' behaviour.

I would submit that Jesus is the one we come before for judgment an I would recommend to any to note what He praised and what He rebuked. A loving God does warn against acts that lead to death. Those rebukes were to the living. Lets not also overlook the praises.

Randy

Hans Deventer

13th July 2008, 11:35 AM (11:35)

I would submit that Jesus is the one we come before for judgment and I would recommend to any to note what He praised and what He rebuked.

Well, we do. But yet, we've never been able to balance those as Jesus did. So we have a choice: err on the side of the law, or on the side of grace. When I read on, agreeing of course with what you said about Jesus being our judge, it seems that if we follow His most direct words about that judgement and apparently what matters most (because they determine our eternal destiny), things would look very different in church (Matthew 25:31-46).

I still rather err on the side of grace.

Randy Wise

13th July 2008, 11:45 AM (11:45)

I still rather err on the side of grace.

Thats ok Hans for what you do or what you don't do has no bearing on someone elses judgment.
Randy

Hans Deventer

13th July 2008, 12:51 PM (12:51)

Thats ok Hans for what you do or what you don't do has no bearing on someone elses judgment.
Randy

I don't know, Randy. You're a Christian, you read the same Bible as I do. Is your reading irrelevant to me? I would not dare to say so.

Gina Stevenson

13th July 2008, 01:13 PM (13:13)

As far as I can see, the church has never been able to love the sinner and hate the sin like our Lord has. We're always either weak or tough (at least according to someone's perception).

Ah, Hans ... reminded me again of some lyrics. Awhile back someone said they detest that phrase re hating the sin, but loving the sinner ... most likely due to just what you said here ... we don't do a good enough job of it. But still, it's not a bad phrase ... something for which to aim, eh? ;)

I. When you see your brother/sister who's fallen by the way,
Do you say, "How awful!" then quickly run away
To find yourself a listening ear, or do you feel his pain,
And breathe his/her name to Jesus, so that s/he may be reclaimed?

CHO: Hate the sin, but love the sinner,
Don't treat him with contempt (here's our problem sometimes, maybe?),
For we're to show him Jesus' love, and never to attempt ...
To put him/her down before others, think we're much better than they.
All our righteousness is as filthy rags,
It's by God's mercy we are saved today!

II. We may be the only form of Jesus some may know.
Will we drive others to Him, or will they want to go
As far away as they can go, because we failed to show
That the only life that's worth the while is with Jesus in control.

Marsha Lynn

13th July 2008, 03:01 PM (15:01)

As far as prompting toward purity, my experience is that there needs to be much room left for the gentle, yet insistent, internal prompting of the Holy Spirit in all of our conversation.

I'm reminded of a scene from long ago. I was playing a game such as "Animal Rummy." I don't remember who all was playing; probably my mother was in the group. My father walked through the room and said, "What? My children playing cards?" Then he walked on.

Forty years or more later, I still remember that comment. It takes so very little to plant the idea that an activity might need to be considered for its appropriateness. The Spirit is surely able to take it from there.

I remember when I was graduating from Grade 6, my friend invited me to her cottage for a week. My parents agreed that I could go but my dad reminded me that on the Sunday, I should make sure I read my Bible and...of course...not go swimming.

It was a scorcher that Sunday. The lake was just outside the front door of the cottage. But I sat on the dock, while everyone else was in the water. I think that was when I first began to question whether every guideline was Spirit led :)

It's the contrast between the two approaches of our fathers in these remembered scenes that interests me. Your father flat out told you not to swim on Sunday. Mine, in this one case, introduced the question concerning the propriety of playing card games without forbidding them. You scorched in the sun while others enjoyed the afternoon. I got to play the game but still was led to consider and decide for myself whether I would include card games in my chosen lifestyle as an adult. I think the intention of the guidelines for holiness and a pure lifestyle is to suggest areas where we each need to be thoughtful about our participation. However, they often are picked up (and presented) as nonnegotiable rules. Is there a way to prompt new/young Christians to look hard at the possible traps associated with worldly entertainments and activities without making a list of rules for them?

Marsha

Crystal Lutton

13th July 2008, 03:19 PM (15:19)

Just to be clear . . . I'm not advocating FOR drinking ;) Other than the occasional Sabbath wine and Passover (which this year included non-alcoholic wine and grape juice) I'm just not a big drinker. Even wine doesn't settle well with me. My point in bringing in the reference from Proverbs that tells Lemuel to allow drink for certain people was to encourage that any examination of a topic from Scripture needs to be THOROUGH. We may certainly pick and choose what we want to preach on (I assure that wouldn't be a main passage for a Shabbat message ;) ) but when preparing our theological positions and doctrines I try very hard to not discount because something doesn't fit my personal hedge. God's Word is very practical and when we start picking and choosing from it we humans have that tendency to create hedges. So would I encourage abstinence in many situations . . . sure. Would I loudly proclaim "The Bible teaches only abstinence!" No, I cannot.

The problem with a hedge is often that we pick things important to us and project them onto others with a prooftexting of Scripture to back our position. To me that is a misuse of Scripture. For instance, I find lots of support for many of the alternative choices we have made in our life in Scripture. I am very confident that our lives are Biblically sound and we are within God's guidelines for living. Yet if I were to take any of those things and impose them on anyone else I would be putting a legalistic hedge on them--suggesting that their life must imitate mine and not Jesus'.

The Pharisees loved Torah--it was everything to them. And they loved the people. The hedge they created was intended to protect the Israelites. If they could avoid violating the hedge they would never get close to violating Torah. But by never getting close to it--close enough to wrestle with it, close enough to make choices of their own regarding embracing it--they were literally keeping people from understanding or truly living Torah.

Our hedges risk putting the same burden on people . . . if they respect a hedge we impose on them and never wrestle with Scripture themselves hasn't our hedge kept them from getting close enough to Scripture to embrace it fully for themselves?

Barbara Moulton

13th July 2008, 04:09 PM (16:09)

Is there a way to prompt new/young Christians to look hard at the possible traps associated with worldly entertainments and activities without making a list of rules for them?

Marsha

Well, of course, in both our cases too, it was our parents who were setting the rules. I don't consider my parents to be legalists because they didn't try to enforce these rules on others. I think they honestly believed that living by certain standards did honour God and I understand why they would assume the right to bring up their children by their standards.

But I don't recall that they thought that all those who didn't share those standards were sinning nor did they condemn me when I sifted through the rules and rejected some of them for myself.

The fact that I got to the point where I was able to do that sifting means that somewhere along the line I must have had some good teaching.

I did go through a stage when I was in my 20's (as did many from my generation) when I jumped on the "blame the parents" bandwagon. I actually did a bit of mocking of their ways...how silly was it to refrain from swimming on a Sunday. But halfway through raising my own kids I thought to myself that I had set rules for them too. That didn't make me a legalist...just a mom who tried to raise her children in line with what she felt was right. My two daughters have now reached adulthood and have each made their own decisions about they should then live. They are their own unique people, not carbon copies of either me or their dad.

I am not sure where I am going with this. I just have become increasingly concerned that there has crept into the church a condemnation of those who have gone before who were. But maybe most of them were, at the heart of it all, people just like you and me. Trying to understand how to live in a world, in a manner that was pleasing to God.

Because their ways were not our ways it is easy to say they were hypocritical, hedge setting legalists. And maybe some were. But not everyone was.

I realize that this, in no way, answer the question you raised to which I was going to respond. But I left it in because my post is sort of a stream of conscience type of thing that was triggered by our conversation.

Barbara Moulton

13th July 2008, 04:25 PM (16:25)

Just to be clear . .

I understand Crystal. But I wanted to be clear too. The Bible doesn't teach abstinence for all, but neither does it teach that we should take a calvalier attitude towards alcohol. (not that you did)

In the same chapter that you quoted which spoke of giving wine and drink to certain people, abstinence was suggested for others. That is a balance that I see throughout Scripture.

Maybe "moderation in all things" needs to include moderation in how we express ourselves.

I woud consider it highly offensive if anyone preached in my church that drinking alcohol was a sin and that abstinence was mark of holiness.

However, I would also consider it highly offensive if anyone preached that alcohol was a gift from God...with no context presented on the responsible use of that gift.

Maybe the answer is not to teach a list of rules but to be honest about areas that have been problematic for some people and help those in the church to give careful thought before they make a decision as to how to exercise Christian freedom. Where Scripture speaks to an issue, we should present what it says in a balanced way and then trust that God will direct them right.

That still leaves us however with the question as to what is the responsiblity of the church if we truly believe that a believer is using his/her freedom in a way that is causing harm to themselves or others.

Marsha Lynn

13th July 2008, 04:35 PM (16:35)

That still leaves us however with the question as to what is the responsibility of the church if we truly believe that a believer is using his/her freedom in a way that is causing harm to themselves or others.

Perhaps the responsibility of the church includes a need to consider such behavior and recognize the fact that each of us at one time or another likewise lives in ways that harm ourselves or others?

Barbara Moulton

13th July 2008, 04:42 PM (16:42)

Perhaps the responsibility of the church includes a need to consider such behavior and recognize the fact that each of us at one time or another likewise lives in ways that harm ourselves or others?

So we don't do anything? In the context of us all exercising freedom is there any accountability to the body?

(Short response because my daughter needs my computer...not because I am being abrupt) :)

Marsha Lynn

13th July 2008, 09:24 PM (21:24)

So we don't do anything? In the context of us all exercising freedom is there any accountability to the body?

That depends on whether you count loving people as "doing something". :basic03

In light of Dave's post reminding us that this is a public forum, I was going to make up a hypothetical situation. However, I don't think I can get my mind around a fictitious "what if," so I'm going with the idea of not saying anything here that I wouldn't say in real life settings.

I am aware of a marriage that is coming to an end. It's a sad, sad situation. Our church is ministering to the wife because she has chosen to be part of us. She comes to us for comfort, support, and prayer. And we do our best to share her burden.

The husband is less committed to inviting us into his life. However, he showed up one weeknight when several of us were at the church, gave hugs and handshakes all around, had a private talk with someone, prayed, hugged again, and left.

This is a lost and wounded soul, reaching out the best he knows how, but still hurting people in terrible ways. Should the church apply discipline?

Someone demanding accountability and purity could say, "Don't come here all affectionate and hug-happy as though you think we don't know how you're destroying your marriage and breaking the heart of someone who loves you. Until you start making good choices in life, you need to find another place to go to church." (Or not be in a leadership position or make some sort of restitution or apologize to the congregation or whatever penance is deemed appropriate.)

However, here's what I wish I could say,

"M______, I'm glad you come to us sometimes when you're struggling with your anger management issues. I appreciate your willingness to admit that you have a problem. I'm shaking your hand right now instead of accepting your hug. I know it's a hug of friendship and I appreciate that, however, the truth is that I wish you were hugging your wife right now rather than people at the church and I'm struggling with that. I want you to know that I'm praying for you. And for T_____. I care deeply about both of you. What else can I do to help?"

Once we love someone deeply and thoroughly, we can afford to be honest with them and reveal the struggle within ourselves to respond to their behavior.

The first response is from a whole person to a broken person. The second response, the one I'd like to make, is from one traveler to another with no sense of "I'm in and you're not." That is how I would like to live and minister.

Does that make sense? I know all about the Bible passages that people use to support a "kick 'em out" approach to discipline. However, I'm willing to take the risk of having God say at the judgment, "You offered way too much grace to sinners." I think it's a risk I can afford to take, if for no other reason than that it's really hard to consistently offer that much grace and I'm not sure many of us are truly in danger of overdoing it.

Marsha

Barbara Moulton

13th July 2008, 10:26 PM (22:26)

Thanks Marsha...my choice of language when I said "do something" was really because, as I said, I was in a rush.

And if I, in any of my posts here, have implied that I believe in a "kick em" approach, then let me state emphatically that this is not my approach to ministry and church leadership. Not at all.

But neither do I believe that ministry of grace precludes gentle correction. But we don't begin at the place of correction. We begin at a place of connection and love.

Crystal Lutton

13th July 2008, 11:59 PM (23:59)

That still leaves us however with the question as to what is the responsiblity of the church if we truly believe that a believer is using his/her freedom in a way that is causing harm to themselves or others.I've really come to believe that when Scripture tells us to speak the truth in love it is admonishing us to only speak the truth when we really love someone. If we don't have a relationship with them where we love them and really want what is best for them we are more likely to come off judgmental and harsh or legalistic. When we love them we can go to them in love and when we share truth they are more likely to hear it that way. If drinking, or anything, is causing problems in someone's life and we love them then we can confront them about the problems and strive to help them see and understand the cause--which may only in part be the drinking. It may be what they are self medicating with the alcohol. It may be what the alcohol is helping them avoid dealing with. I've so often seen people confronted about something like this and the issue (drinking) was the focus. If someone's drinking is causing a problem then there is a reason for the drinking. That reason needs to be uncovered in order to really address the drinking and help them with the problems that the drinking is causing.

and I very much agree with you that
I woud consider it highly offensive if anyone preached in my church that drinking alcohol was a sin and that abstinence was mark of holiness.

However, I would also consider it highly offensive if anyone preached that alcohol was a gift from God...with no context presented on the responsible use of that gift.

Maybe the answer is not to teach a list of rules but to be honest about areas that have been problematic for some people and help those in the church to give careful thought before they make a decision as to how to exercise Christian freedom. Where Scripture speaks to an issue, we should present what it says in a balanced way and then trust that God will direct them right.

that is where I was trying to go and what I believe about the entire issue of the OP. "Not drinking" does not equal holiness. Lots of people in the world don't drink. "Drinking" is not necessarily an issue of unholiness. Lots of saved and holy people have imbibed. And this is why an imposed hedge is not the answer imo.

I believe it's the job of teachers in the church to not just teach what Scripture says but to teach everyone how to study the Scriptures that God gave to them. No one should do something just because of my say so, or anyone's say so. They need to wrestle with God's Word and not walk away until they have the blessing--the understanding of what Scripture says about it!

Laurie Florence

14th July 2008, 08:36 AM (08:36)

I've really come to believe that when Scripture tells us to speak the truth in love it is admonishing us to only speak the truth when we really love someone. If we don't have a relationship with them where we love them and really want what is best for them we are more likely to come off judgmental and harsh or legalistic. When we love them we can go to them in love and when we share truth they are more likely to hear it that way.

Crystal, this is so true. :)

The part I quoted above really speaks to my heart. I'm thinking this may be a key point to purity in the church - people developing genuine and caring relationships with each other.

Marsha Lynn

14th July 2008, 10:07 AM (10:07)

But neither do I believe that ministry of grace precludes gentle correction. But we don't begin at the place of correction. We begin at a place of connection and love.

Agreed.

As I have thought about this thread, I have been reminded of two great falls I have seen in the church.

The first was a church leader -- teacher, up-front person, board member, every-service attender. At one point a friend who loved him took him to lunch and tried to warn him that his ministry to young girls didn't look good. He laughed off the warning. A few years later he died in prison, convicted of child molesting. The legal system took care of removing him from the church.

The second was a church leader -- teacher, up-front person, every-service attender, sure of her beliefs and convictions and position, even when others disagreed. When it became apparent that some changes needed to be made, she resisted them as long as possible and then made some deep cuts with her sharp tongue as she exited to go down the road to a church that would properly appreciate her.

Neither of these people were open to the "gentle correction" of the church. Both brought dishonor to the "Christian" label they carr(y/ied). I think that it's the difference in how the impurity each brought to the fellowship is seen that makes me so very cautious concerning church discipline. If we consistently expressed as much concern about the grievous harm done by the sharp tongues among us as the harm done by child molesters and loved those behind both offenses equally, I would feel better about it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that child molestation isn't a horrendous evil. What I'm saying is that there are other horrendous evils that are far less frequently recognized and addressed. From what I have observed and encountered in historical texts, religious people don't have a real good record for discerning good from evil, particularly when the evil that needs to be addressed reflects what lies within them. That's why I think we're better off cultivating love than exercising discipline. When we love deeply enough, the discipline will come naturally as we respond to those who are destroying themselves and/or others.

Marsha