The New Legalism

[Mark Metcalfe]

The Who demonstrate poetic prescience in their song Won’t Get Fooled Again in the lyrics “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”

I think it would be helpful to define the old legalism that I grew up with before describing the new legalism.

Growing up in the Church of the Nazarene, (and later in my understandings of much of what is presently termed the “religious right” - a term more often derided with disgust than with description), goodness and morality were sometimes defined as behaviors in which we did not participate. For example, “we don’t smoke, and we don’t chew, and we don’t go with girls that do” and “Beer is bad and whiskey’s worse. We drink water; safety first.” There was a time when lipstick and jewelry were frowned upon and ladies wore white gloves and hats to church.[1] Men wore ties; people were expected to come to church in their “Sunday best.” Getting a divorce was uncommon and often held a stigma. I could on and on about such things and many of them are relics of the past that rightfully should be left in the past. Surely, we are much more enlightened today and far better off than our predecessors. Aren’t we?

One of the lessons of history is that perspective and context of the past can help to see the context of the present. For example, while some lament the loss of “the altar call,” it changes our perspective when we realize that altars as we knew them in protestant traditions were not around until the 1850s or thereabouts. (How did people come to the Lord before then?) In our generations, their use evolved from “mourner’s bench” to “communication station” to irrelevant in some places. I would venture to say that people might have trouble recognizing at any point in the history of the church that was back a few generations.

Some people compare our present Church period to an earlier Church period and feel superior in almost every way. New ways of thinking and diversity must surely be a renaissance for the Church. It is a hard task to see how our period fits into a continuum of change and realize that we are not really all that different from the past, but merely different players with a different set of issues. This means that the past was not as bad (or as good) as we might think it was, and neither is the present as good (or as bad) and we might think it is.

So what is the new legalism? Just like the old legalism, new legalism also focuses on the “what we [should] do” as opposed to “who we are to be.” Just as we did back in the day, the reasons why we took Saturday night baths and shined shoes on Saturday night [2] gave way to routine behaviors that were passed on to our children with the reason that “it is what you’re supposed to do.”

Some shifts in “approved behavior” were merely a pendulum swing that flipped an old way. For example, Pentecostal expression was part of the COTN in the beginning, but that gave way to behaving “properly and reverently” in church, which is now seen today as not participating or unenthusiastic about God, or sometimes is labeled “a dead church.” (“There’s no life at the church where they cling to old hymns and rituals.”) We’re supposed to know a tree by its fruit, but judging these behaviors is not indicative of anything more than a subjective viewpoint on worship expression.[3]

I don’t know who observed the shift in Church focus from “getting saved” to “doing good things” but I think the Church has shifted in its emphasis.[4] Whether this shift is good, bad, or neutral, it is hard for me to tell except by the guidance of prior shifts and what Scripture has to say.[5] Anyone who has discussed the roles of faith and works should see how the two are mutually inclusive. However, when either is given too much preeminence such that it overshadows the other, one can either become “so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly good” or stray into the legalism of works righteousness. (Smoke and drink were the old bogeymen. Today’s focus is more on sins of omission and sins against nature.)

So what are the new legalism “sacred cows?”


Social Justice - What is not to like about fairly “distributing advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of society?” It is good and right to care for the poor and disadvantaged.

Resource Management - We should be stewards of our environment. We should not abuse the gift of this earth that God has lent to us.

Legalism is a good thing that is perverted; bent out of shape; placed in greater importance than more important things. Jesus said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. “ – MT 23:23 NIV Jesus is saying that it is a good thing to tithe one’s mint and cumin (if you’re a good Jew); it is something that “should” be practiced - like social justice and resource management – but when something good usurps the more important things, it becomes just another legalistic behavior. Neither endeavor makes a person more righteous, any more than the point of a sword was able to make a true religious convert.

So how should the Church act with purity of motive and virtuous action? My father told me, “When we ask ‘what do you stand for?’ we get pulled apart… but when we say, ‘Who do you stand for?’ (as in Jesus), we are one.”

The Church has abdicated its primacy of being a spiritual beacon in favor of being a political moral compass. We point people to good causes rather than to Jesus Himself, going so far as to indicate that Jesus sponsors our good causes. (Why would he not?) Where the Church has fallen short, we applaud and encourage the partial and compromising measures of the secular government to do the good the Church has failed to do. As long as these half-measures are acceptable to people in the Church, then the Church is truly in a post-Christian era.

Mark

[1] One morning as the people were filing out of church, the preacher told my father-in-law not to bring “that hussy” back to church – within her hearing – because of her make-up. That “hussy” was later to become my mother-in-law who had gone to modeling school and wore lipstick on that day. (High fashion.)

[2] Saturday night baths and preparations like shoe-shining were necessary to do on Saturday night because of observance of the commandment to “remember the Sabbath Day” to keep it holy, which involved a practicing a very different day than the previous six.

[3] I suppose you all know the joke well enough for me to give only the punch line: “Shh. Those are the Nazarenes. They think that they are the only ones up here in heaven.”

[4] Someone pointed similarly to hymnology as a means to gain insight into the focuses of the church at different times in history. I cannot cite specific examples with authority, but in the early 1900s when times were especially hard, songs might speak of “rest beyond the river” and even further back noting songs borne out of American slavery (gospels). It would be worth a study (IMO) and if someone has information about this, it would be very interesting to read.

[5] The seven churches in Revelation 1 may be one place to judge our present Church.

[Ryan Scott]

I think this is an important reminder. I am quite often utterly depressed at the massive problems existing in the world and just how helpless I am do make a real difference. It's very difficult to remember that this understanding is the core of our faith - we are too small to do anything beyond living life in imitation of Christ.

I've been convicted of a lot of things and have made a great number of changes to my life - those commitments have come from both Mark's "old" and "new" schools. The real issue with legalism is when we become consumed with the action over the motivation. One of the most difficult actions of Jesus for me to follow is simply how he lived in the moment. His priorities were always properly aligned. I fail in that area over and over. My attempts to do the right thing often trump my ability to be the person I've been created to be.

[Susan Unger]

I once was friends with folks who were independent fundamental baptists. After a conversation with one in which he told me how he had Christian liberty [and weren't like the legalistic Wesleyans that he grew up with] yet loved to tell me how a woman who had any kind of authority or say in the church or marriage was sinning, I realized legalism was relative. I realized that anytime we put rules and judgements on others instead of extending grace, we are being legalistic. It's been slow, but I am much improved in getting the garbage of legalism out of my soul.

[Mike Wooldridge]

One of the most difficult actions of Jesus for me to follow is simply how he lived in the moment. His priorities were always properly aligned. I fail in that area over and over. My attempts to do the right thing often trump my ability to be the person I've been created to be.
That sounds remarkably like some of the Apostle Paul's writings.

[Billy Cox]

The Who demonstrate poetic prescience in their song Won’t Get Fooled Again in the lyrics “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”

I think it would be helpful to define the old legalism that I grew up with before describing the new legalism.

...

So what is the new legalism? Just like the old legalism, new legalism also focuses on the “what we [should] do” as opposed to “who we are to be.”

That's not legalism...that is religion. Show me a religion that is focused on being instead of doing and I'll show you a philosophy that is really lousy in attracting and keeping followers.

So the requirements change from generation to generation; hemlines or feeding the hungry... and maybe I'm agreeing with you that the old boss and the new boss aren't so different...but the boss isn't legalism, it's religious bondage.



The Church has abdicated its primacy of being a spiritual beacon in favor of being a political moral compass. We point people to good causes rather than to Jesus Himself, going so far as to indicate that Jesus sponsors our good causes. (Why would he not?) Where the Church has fallen short, we applaud and encourage the partial and compromising measures of the secular government to do the good the Church has failed to do. As long as these half-measures are acceptable to people in the Church, then the Church is truly in a post-Christian era.

If I'm not mistaken, perhaps you have higher regard for the 'old boss'? I have trouble understanding that point of view. There is after all far more biblical evidence of Jesus having a soft side for the shiftless poor, whereas I don't know of even one incident where Jesus chided someone for lax Sabbath observance or where he condemned a woman for leading men astray with her provocative ankle exposure.

It's certainly possible to do the things Jesus did, albeit in a heavy-handed way, but isn't that better than enthusiastically doing the wrong things with a smile and a handshake?

[Hans Deventer]

That's Revelation 2-3 :)

Anyway, everything is a reaction to something. The Reformation was a reaction to the works righteousness prominent in those days. Right now, people have had it with propositional truth (what is truth anyway?) and seek a faith that makes a difference. Also, the Church lost any authority it had and the only way to find some of that, is integrity. You can't be a spiritual beacon if people think your "truth" is simply irrelevant for their lives.
So the question then remains, what is the truth we cannot do away with? What is the core of our message? I would say that is God who became man for our sake, and who happens to ask the same from us, but the other way around. As Athanasius once said: "God became man so that man might become a god".

I see a difference in legalism. We once defended spiritual purity. Now, the law is that you have to be relevant. I think it's an improvement.

[Mark Metcalfe]

That's not legalism...that is religion. Show me a religion that is focused on being instead of doing and I'll show you a philosophy that is really lousy in attracting and keeping followers.

So the requirements change from generation to generation; hemlines or feeding the hungry... and maybe I'm agreeing with you that the old boss and the new boss aren't so different...but the boss isn't legalism, it's religious bondage.



If I'm not mistaken, perhaps you have higher regard for the 'old boss'? I have trouble understanding that point of view. There is after all far more biblical evidence of Jesus having a soft side for the shiftless poor, whereas I don't know of even one incident where Jesus chided someone for lax Sabbath observance or where he condemned a woman for leading men astray with her provocative ankle exposure.

It's certainly possible to do the things Jesus did, albeit in a heavy-handed way, but isn't that better than enthusiastically doing the wrong things with a smile and a handshake?

1. Re: "being ... is lousy in attracting... "

The cleansed heart is what attracts people, not good causes - those follow the cleansed heart and not vice versa. I have observed preaching and intimations that place an emphasis on doing good things and implying that these will lead a person to Christ and a cleansed heart. Although faith and works are companions, there is a precedence.

2. Re: "If I am not mistaken..."

But you are mistaken. I have no higher regard for the old legalism than I do for the new legalism. I suggest that you are looking at the old legalism from a modern context and not the context of the time. My point is that whatever rationalizations as to why this good thing is far and away better (or more "relevant" Hans) than the things people thought were good "back then" and "back whenever" is the same rationale.

One can read Doing Lost, Being Found (http://russellmetcalfesermons.nazarene.nl/SermonTexts/dad.doing_lost_being_found) (my father's sermon) which has an obvious influence on what I have regarded. He speaks of the subject 15 years ago quoting John Fletcher from 200 years ago. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Excerpt:

In John Wesley's day the human nature was exactly the same as it is
today. The saintly man John Wesley hand picked to be his successor,
John Fletcher, was deeply concerned about people who DO religion apart
from the SPIRIT, apart from the REFERENCE point of accountability to
Jesus. If you can try with me to "translate" two- hundred-year-old
English, listen to John Fletcher's concern for his day:

TO CHRISTIAN PHARISEES: I address you first, ye perfect Christian
pharisees, because ye are most ready to profess Christian
perfection, thought [sic], alas! ye stand at the greatest distance
from perfect humility, --the grace which is most essential to the
perfect Christian's character; and because the enemies of our
doctrine make use of you first, when they endeavor to root it up
from the earth. That ye may know whom I mean by "perfect Christian
pharisees," give me leave to show you your own picture in the glass
of a plain description. Ye have professedly entered into the fold
where Christ's sheep, which are perfected in love, rest all at each
other's feet, and at the feet of the Lamb of God. But how have ye
entered? by Christ the door? or at the door of presumption? Not by
Christ the door; for Christ is meekness and lowliness manifested in
the flesh, but ye are still ungentle and fond of praise. When He
pours out His soul as a divine prophet, He says, "Learn of Me, for
I am meek and lowly in heart: take My yoke upon you, and ye shall
find rest unto your souls." But ye overlook this humble door; your
proud, gigantic minds are above stooping low enough to follow Him
who "made Himself of no reputation," that He might raise us to
heavenly honours; and who, to pour just contempt upon human pride,
had His first night's lodging in a stable, and spent His last night
partly on the cold ground, in a storm of Divine wrath, and partly
in an ignominious confinement, exposed to the greatest indignities
which Jews and Gentiles could pour upon Him. He rested His infant
head upon hay, His dying head upon thorns. A manger was His
cradle, and a cross His death-bed. Thirty years He traveled from
the sordid stable to the accursed tree, unnoticed by His own
peculiar people. In the brightest of His days, poor fishermen,
some Galilean women, and a company of shouting children, formed all
his retinue. Shepherds were His first attendants, and malefactors
his last companions.


Fletcher was saying we cannot be Christian apart from Jesus and the
Spirit of Jesus.

In a community that was concerned with its own salvation and
success the Lord Jesus was out of step. The Pharisees then found fault
with His actions and attitudes. The three stories about being "Lost and
Found" in Luke 15 are an answer to those who simply DO RELIGION. Jesus
is not in a defensive posture, but rather He is giving us a glimpse into
the heart of God. He is trying to give a point of reference-- to say
that salvation-- true religion-- is GOD-CENTERED. Jesus is exposing the
self-centeredness that is at the very heart of all sin. (Don't forget,
sin is spelled with an "I" in the middle!)

[Mark Metcalfe]

That's Revelation 2-3 :)

Anyway, everything is a reaction to something. The Reformation was a reaction to the works righteousness prominent in those days. Right now, people have had it with propositional truth (what is truth anyway?) and seek a faith that makes a difference. Also, the Church lost any authority it had and the only way to find some of that, is integrity. You can't be a spiritual beacon if people think your "truth" is simply irrelevant for their lives.
So the question then remains, what is the truth we cannot do away with? What is the core of our message? I would say that is God who became man for our sake, and who happens to ask the same from us, but the other way around. As Athanasius once said: "God became man so that man might become a god".

I see a difference in legalism. We once defended spiritual purity. Now, the law is that you have to be relevant. I think it's an improvement.

I get the "being relevant" part, Hans, but please explain how one can be relevant to one's time (in a Christian context) without first being spiritually pure?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

...how one can be relevant to one's time (in a Christian context) without first being spiritually pure?

Mark, I'm still working out your first post, but perhaps this will help me: what does it look like to first be spiritually pure?

[Jon Bemis]

but please explain how one can be relevant to one's time (in a Christian context) without first being spiritually pure?

I would echo Jeremy's question "what does it look like to be first spiritually pure?" My understanding, which is admittedly inadequate, is that as one who has professed Christ and believes that God has raised Him from the dead, I am already spiritually pure. I can't become any more "pefect" than He has already made me because of what He has done for me.


But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. Hebrews 10:12-14

I understand my role in all of this is to cooperate with the Spirit as I am in the process of being made holy, which I expect will be an ongoing work for the rest of my life. I wonder if the "old legalism" or "new legalism" might have its roots in believing there is something I have to do to prove that I am holy enough, when in fact, God has already settled that.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Mark, I'm still working out your first post, but perhaps this will help me: what does it look like to first be spiritually pure?

In the context of Jesus' day, it would have been to tithe your mint, dill, and cummin (for the right reasons) along with justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Micah 6:8 (one of my three life verses) speaks to justice, mercy, and humility.

The temptation of EACH generation is to justify their legalisms by saying that they fit the mold. WWJD is more often rendered WDITJWD and sometimes IDCWJWD.

One of the points of my essay is that this generation and any previous generation are part of a continuum in Christianity and a claim to moral supremacy of this generation over a previous one is more often based out of context of that continuum. My wife Joy pointed out that it is easy to see the flaws and failures of the previous Church (often missing the victories), but when it comes to recognizing where we miss the mark... well, the next few generations will tell us where we went wrong in their enlightened and modern relevant perspectives.

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

I get the "being relevant" part, Hans, but please explain how one can be relevant to one's time (in a Christian context) without first being spiritually pure?

That depends on Jesus' definition or the Pharisees' definition.

[Todd Erickson]

That's Revelation 2-3 :)

Anyway, everything is a reaction to something. The Reformation was a reaction to the works righteousness prominent in those days. Right now, people have had it with propositional truth (what is truth anyway?) and seek a faith that makes a difference. Also, the Church lost any authority it had and the only way to find some of that, is integrity. You can't be a spiritual beacon if people think your "truth" is simply irrelevant for their lives.
So the question then remains, what is the truth we cannot do away with? What is the core of our message? I would say that is God who became man for our sake, and who happens to ask the same from us, but the other way around. As Athanasius once said: "God became man so that man might become a god".

I see a difference in legalism. We once defended spiritual purity. Now, the law is that you have to be relevant. I think it's an improvement.

I like what Donald Miller had to say about this. He was in a radio interview, and the interviewer demanded that he defend Christianity.

He stated that he couldn't defend it, because it meant so many things to different people, and so many people had been hurt badly by it. Instead, he preferred to tell the guy about Jesus Christ, who loved him.

The man professed that he was fascinated by the idea that Christ would actually love him, as this had never been expressed to him before.

[Sarah Smith]

Mark, what a wonderful essay.

My maternal grandmother came from the era of "don't cut your hair, don't wear lipstick, only a Jezebel would paint her face".

And yet, what she found in the Wesleyan/holiness movement was freedom. Not condemnation, but freedom. The news that not only would Jesus save her from the penalty of the sins that were destroying her, but was also willing to free her from them.

She found unmitigated joy.

My dad came from an area rife with fundamentalist Baptists of the most extreme kind. What he found in the Protestant Methodist Church was a God so much larger than that. A God that would reach out to the person before the person had an inkling they needed God. A God that did not send grief and pain, but allowed free will with all it's consequences. A God that would stand by one through those consequences. A God that loved enough to suffer not only for, but with a person--and bring them out into the sunshine on the other side if only they would yield in repentance and allow heart cleansing. A God that encouraged one to think and reason rather than fear doing so. He found a great big good God.

I think if we get back to the business of worshipping and serving and sharing that kind of God, with the good news of salvation and freedom, all those good deeds we push (and they are good!) will naturally follow.

[Shea Zellweger]

Mark, what a wonderful essay.

My maternal grandmother came from the era of "don't cut your hair, don't wear lipstick, only a Jezebel would paint her face".

And yet, what she found in the Wesleyan/holiness movement was freedom. Not condemnation, but freedom. The news that not only would Jesus save her from the penalty of the sins that were destroying her, but was also willing to free her from them.

She found unmitigated joy.


This is a wonderful testimony. I'm actually very surprised by it. Our early history is rife with people having to decide between their wedding rings and church membership, and I've met more than one Nazarene "old-timer" who felt that it was a shame women are wearing pants and "ear bobs" these days. Glad your grandmother did not find that sort of opposition.

[Sarah Smith]

Oh she did, Shea, she did. She had been sold into child prostitution by a family member. Her bobbed hair and jewelry and lipstick were tools of the trade. At that time they marked a woman (in her neck of the woods) as a hooker. She gladly laid them down when Jesus saved and cleansed her.

Years later, when times had changed and it wasn't a hooker's trademark, she was one of the first in her church to bob her hair--no more heat rash in the south east Texas heat and humidity.

A few years later she decided the gleam in my grandpa's eye was more important than man made rules and bought a lipstick.

But by that time her culture had changed around her and she didn't have to fear anyone thinking she had hung out her red light.

I think rather than rule bound she was very culturally sensitive.

[Billy Cox]

But you are mistaken. I have no higher regard for the old legalism than I do for the new legalism. I suggest that you are looking at the old legalism from a modern context and not the context of the time. My point is that whatever rationalizations as to why this good thing is far and away better (or more "relevant" Hans) than the things people thought were good "back then" and "back whenever" is the same rationale.

I guess my main point of contention is with the willy nilly labeling of compassionate ministries as a legalism, when by definition that is far from the truth.

I also think that evangelical objections to social justice or Christian environmentalism are basically American conservative politics masquerading as concern for the lost.

[Shea Zellweger]

I guess my main point of contention is with the willy nilly labeling of compassionate ministries as a legalism, when by definition that is far from the truth.

I also think that evangelical objections to social justice or Christian environmentalism are basically American conservative politics masquerading as concern for the lost.

I think there's an inherent group of people saying "we never do X" and another group saying "We strive to do Y." The command to care for "the least of these my brothers" was given by Jesus, while Paul decries legalism as being "do not taste, do not handle, do not touch." Both Scripture and human nature tell us that there's a difference between an affirming command and a restricting one, and I don't think we can lump them together. I'm more comfortable putting giving (or "tithing") in the same category as compassionate ministries than I am placing the condemnation of women in pants on that list.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I guess my main point of contention is with the willy nilly labeling of compassionate ministries as a legalism, when by definition that is far from the truth.

I also think that evangelical objections to social justice or Christian environmentalism are basically American conservative politics masquerading as concern for the lost.

I guessed at your point(s) of contention (but didn't want to be mistaken).

I have not labeled compassionate ministries as a legalism in a willy nilly fashion. In fact, I stated firmly that these things should be practiced. However, even good things can start out well-meaning and take turns for the worse, and I think the history of the Church has plenty of examples of this. What makes the people of the modern Church believe that we are immune from such excesses? If people of the past had trouble seeing their behaviors as legalistic, why would we think that people of today know any better? As I said in the essay: It is a hard task to see how our period fits into a continuum of change and realize that we are not really all that different from the past, but merely different players with a different set of issues.

For example, in the past, preaching against alcohol showed concern for people in difficult circumstance, just as social justice shows that one truly cares about fellow human beings. There are a lot of factors involved in where the modern Church is today, but in the end, there is nothing new under the sun.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

My father-in-law, Rev. Tom Crawford defines legalism as "if you believe strongly that something is required as an evidence of salvation, and I don't believe it is required as an evidence of salvation, that's legalism. Works are an evidence of salvation but not a requirement of it."

He adds, "The Bible says, 'Be ye therefore holy as I am holy, saith the Lord."
Am I saved because I am holy? Or, am I holy because I am saved?
If I am saved because I am holy, that according to the tradition falls into the category of legalism.
If I am holy because I am saved, that is a component of faith and obedience.

Tom Crawford (Mark as his dictation secretary)

[Wilson Deaton]

The Who demonstrate poetic prescience in their song Won’t Get Fooled Again in the lyrics “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”
...
So what is the new legalism?
...
So what are the new legalism “sacred cows?”


Social Justice - What is not to like about fairly “distributing advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of society?” It is good and right to care for the poor and disadvantaged.

Resource Management - We should be stewards of our environment. We should not abuse the gift of this earth that God has lent to us.

Legalism is a good thing that is perverted; bent out of shape; placed in greater importance than more important things.

Your essay was well written and I think it sounds an alarm against a valid threat. However, I have to disagree with you on two counts.

First of all, I think your list of sacred cows is skewed against left-oriented issues while ignoring other issues: Right to Life and Gay Marriage are getting more attention in the evangelical world than Social Justice and Resource Management. How is it you listed the latter two while ignoring the former two?

Secondly, I think you have simply jumped the gun. That is, I agree that these things have the potential to become the new legalism but I don't believe we are there yet. The strength and the pervasiveness of the current ethical emphases are still rather weak compared to the strength and pervasiveness of the "thou shalt nots" some of us grew up with.

Wilson

[Roland Hearn]

Mark,
I agree with your warning but the fact is the church (read people) has the capacity to make anything, anytime, anywhere a control issue - that's what legalism essentially is. Any time we try and assert control and define the world by what gives us a sense of safety we have entered the "legalism danger zone." So therefore everything, except a genuine christo centric lifestyle, qualifies for the warning. So rather than attempting to discover or define the next issue I think there is much more validity in addressing what comprises true spirituality - that will always protect against legalism.

[Mark Metcalfe]

First of all, I think your list of sacred cows is skewed against left-oriented issues while ignoring other issues: Right to Life and Gay Marriage are getting more attention in the evangelical world than Social Justice and Resource Management. How is it you listed the latter two while ignoring the former two?

My list of sacred cows are merely the most recent. Quote: "What are the NEW legalism sacred cows?"

[Jim Franklin]

Living with a group of Seventh Day Adventists they must rate right near he top. I heard my son say the other day "that he could not become an orthodox Jew so he just has to stay where he is. Breaks a Father's heart.

[Shea Zellweger]

My father-in-law, Rev. Tom Crawford defines legalism as "if you believe strongly that something is required as an evidence of salvation, and I don't believe it is required as an evidence of salvation, that's legalism. Works are an evidence of salvation but not a requirement of it."

He adds, "The Bible says, 'Be ye therefore holy as I am holy, saith the Lord."
Am I saved because I am holy? Or, am I holy because I am saved?
If I am saved because I am holy, that according to the tradition falls into the category of legalism.
If I am holy because I am saved, that is a component of faith and obedience.

Tom Crawford (Mark as his dictation secretary)

I would say that salvation is dependent on works, in the same way that the body is dependent on breath (how very biblical of me!). You can live without breathing for a little while, but in order to go on, you must breathe! Are you alive because you're breathing, or are you breathing because you're alive? I would say the answer is both, and likewise we do works because we are saved, but if we did not do works (or "bear fruit," if you want to mix the metaphor), it would be an indication that we're probably not...

[Jeremy D. Scott]

My father-in-law, Rev. Tom Crawford defines legalism as "if you believe strongly that something is required as an evidence of salvation, and I don't believe it is required as an evidence of salvation, that's legalism. Works are an evidence of salvation but not a requirement of it."

What kind of salvation? Salvation from an eternal hell after death? As long as that's our main focus, I expect people to put what we do with our hands, resources, time in this life to be secondary to this "heart-only" notion of faith, which I believe is unbiblical and unlike Christ:

For sure, because God is God and we are not, we are not saved by our works. But we are indeed judged by them (Matthew 25:31-46 (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=141610074), note particularly 34-36). Jesus could have showed up and died on the cross for our sins, but he took quite a while to show us how to live this life prior to that, too.

It's unfortunate that over the last half century or so, Nazarenes have let the general evangelical notion of salvation from eternal hell become the focus of our message when holiness (salvation from the earthly hell) used to be our watchword and song.

It might be better said, "We are saved by faithfulness." Biblical scholars tell us that pistis is just as well, if not better translated as faithfulness - which includes heart and life - than simply "faith." When we boil it down to "just gotta believe in my heart," it's almost gnostic-like, limiting it to an invisible mind-thought and heart-speak.

Further, I'm not sure why we'd separate the two:


He adds, "The Bible says, 'Be ye therefore holy as I am holy, saith the Lord."
Am I saved because I am holy? Or, am I holy because I am saved?
If I am saved because I am holy, that according to the tradition falls into the category of legalism.
If I am holy because I am saved, that is a component of faith and obedience.

Why separate holiness and salvation? In that passage, God doesn't...why would we?
Why focus on requirements for salvation when we can instead do so on requirements for Christlikeness?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

So what is the new legalism? Just like the old legalism, new legalism also focuses on the “what we [should] do” as opposed to “who we are to be.

I think someone's already mentioned it, but it bears repeating...there may be a difference between saying what we shouldn't do and what we should do. Jesus tells us that it's not what goes into our bodies that defiles (internal), but what exits our bodies (that which people see).


I don’t know who observed the shift in Church focus from “getting saved” to “doing good things” but I think the Church has shifted in its emphasis.[4] Whether this shift is good, bad, or neutral, it is hard for me to tell except by the guidance of prior shifts and what Scripture has to say.[5] Anyone who has discussed the roles of faith and works should see how the two are mutually inclusive. However, when either is given too much preeminence such that it overshadows the other, one can either become “so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly good” or stray into the legalism of works righteousness. (Smoke and drink were the old bogeymen. Today’s focus is more on sins of omission and sins against nature.)

So what are the new legalism “sacred cows?”


Social Justice - What is not to like about fairly “distributing advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of society?” It is good and right to care for the poor and disadvantaged.

Resource Management - We should be stewards of our environment. We should not abuse the gift of this earth that God has lent to us.

At the risk of being labelled a new legalist :smilies0295:, can you explain where you've felt ostracized by this legalism? If you've found in the Church of the Nazarene that you're being forced out because you don't do these things, that's unfortunate indeed. I've not experienced that, nor do I believe that I have been the perpetrator.

I worship every week with staunch capitalists. Heck...in many ways, I am a capitalist. I worship every week with people who don't recycle (I know this because I empty the trash in the church building :tongue:), who drive big SUVs (wait...I do too), and who are wasteful in some kind of way (whoops...guilty as charged again).

I wasn't there, but my understanding of the legalism of the past was that one ended up in being ostracized from participation in the local church (if not by official measures, by attitude and lack of solidarity). Have you truly seen this in regard to the two sacred cows you mention above?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

This video reverberates this discussion, Leonard Sweet:



http://www.vimeo.com/11922674

[Mark Metcalfe]

I think someone's already mentioned it, but it bears repeating...there may be a difference between saying what we shouldn't do and what we should do. Jesus tells us that it's not what goes into our bodies that defiles (internal), but what exits our bodies (that which people see).


"Everybody ought to go to Sunday School" is telling people what they should do, therefore I do not see a distinction between shoulds and should nots in this discussion. I'll respond to the rest later, after I have been to Sunday School. And by the way, I am going because I want to go.

Mark

[Jeremy D. Scott]

"Everybody ought to go to Sunday School" is telling people what they should do, therefore I do not see a distinction between shoulds and should nots in this discussion. I'll respond to the rest later, after I have been to Sunday School. And by the way, I am going because I want to go.

Mark

Okay, I think this is becoming clearer now. I think we operate on different understandings of legalism.

"Everybody ought to go to Sunday School" is not necessarily a legalistic statement to me. Should we say, "If you don't go to Sunday School, you can't be a part of our church," it begins to head towards legalism, but for me, isn't even there quite yet. Legalism rears its ugly head when the point of what we say becomes something other than Christ and his likeness. The "should" or "ought to" does not necessarily imply legalism (are you saying that it does?) So the church might teach or say something that the world may indeed regard as legalism, but that we who are members know to be a worthy, worthwhile, and healthy teaching.

Am I wrong in the separation between us?

If I'm not, I'm surprised at what you're saying. It almost seems liberal to me. (I'm not trying to be flippant.) This relates to the current thread on the authority of scripture and/or the church: at what point does an individual receive the teaching of the church, even when at points s/he is not completely "sure" of that teaching?

[Billy Cox]

My list of sacred cows are merely the most recent. Quote: "What are the NEW legalism sacred cows?"

...or perhaps the battles over abortion and gay marriage are lost already?

[Mark Metcalfe]

Jeremy, you brought up the shoulds and should nots: "think someone's already mentioned it, but it bears repeating...there may be a difference between saying what we shouldn't do and what we should do."

Today, we don't go so far as to say, "if you don't wear a black tie instead of a red tie, you will go to hell." Instead, we might say that we don't understand how someone can be a Christian and not do what we do, not say what we say is right.

Social Justice and Christian environmentalism (as Billy termed it) are front and center in our culture today - so they are the prime issues - JUST as other things were front and center in another day. Understanding the past from the lens of the past is helpful, I think. Choose almost anything from the Past Church that you consider legalistic today, and I will step out on the limb to state that most or all of these behaviors started out with the best of godly intentions and with people's souls and Christian walk in mind: such things as prudence, modesty, sobriety, purity, faithfulness...holiness. And yet, somehow some of those behaviors lost their meaning, or were abused by some people and against some people. (In our present day, we might have kindly referred to some of these people in today's terms as immature Christians.) For example, it sounds silly to us today that people dressed in their "Sunday best" when they went to church. We might be tempted to impugn the motives of past Christians and say that they were prideful and dressed for show, or they dressed finely to make themselves better than other people. But there were people who dressed to the nines to glorify God and that was one way that they showed reverence and deference to God.

We often look at the past with a modern lens and think that we will certainly learn from their mistakes, and wonder how the church ever survived in such a twisted way of viewing Christian behaviors. We think that we'll do it right. (A note to people of Past Church experience: the church will survive this present age with its mistakes in such a "twisted way" too.) The Past Church was FULL of people devoted to God (as it certainly had its legalists). Perhaps as importnat to recognize, the Past Church IS part of who the Present Church is today because we are Living Stones.

Not a legalistic behavior (I don't think), but I once picketed an Adult Book Store, registering my opposition to the purveyors of pornography. However, I realized that shutting down Towers News wasn't going to rid the world of the pornography problem; not even make a dent. (This was before the internet explosion, by the way.) The answer to our present day issues (whether abortion, gay marriage, pornography, addressing poverty and injustice, or addressing stewardship) is not found in activism of a political nature because NONE of these things deal with the root causes of the issues of their day, or our day.

It sounds so "Sunday School" to say what the answer actually is to each of these issues in our society today, but it is Jesus. Nothing but a heart cleansing will change the world around us: not redistribution of wealth, not good stewardship, because man is depraved and bent toward sin and that continually. It occurs one heart at a time, not by bus ministry (of the past) or "community building" of the present; one heart turned over to Jesus.

Gotta run; my week looks like a busy one so I don't know how active I can continue to be here. I'll try.

Mark

[David Troxler]

This video reverberates this discussion, Leonard Sweet:



http://www.vimeo.com/11922674

Jeremy,
Outstanding video. What Sweet had to say fits so many of the recent discussions on several topics that have gotten a great deal of traction here on NN.
dave t

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Jeremy, you brought up the shoulds and should nots: "think someone's already mentioned it, but it bears repeating...there may be a difference between saying what we shouldn't do and what we should do."

Today, we don't go so far as to say, "if you don't wear a black tie instead of a red tie, you will go to hell." Instead, we might say that we don't understand how someone can be a Christian and not do what we do, not say what we say is right.

Social Justice and Christian environmentalism (as Billy termed it) are front and center in our culture today - so they are the prime issues - JUST as other things were front and center in another day. Understanding the past from the lens of the past is helpful, I think. Choose almost anything from the Past Church that you consider legalistic today, and I will step out on the limb to state that most or all of these behaviors started out with the best of godly intentions and with people's souls and Christian walk in mind: such things as prudence, modesty, sobriety, purity, faithfulness...holiness. And yet, somehow some of those behaviors lost their meaning, or were abused by some people and against some people. (In our present day, we might have kindly referred to some of these people in today's terms as immature Christians.) For example, it sounds silly to us today that people dressed in their "Sunday best" when they went to church. We might be tempted to impugn the motives of past Christians and say that they were prideful and dressed for show, or they dressed finely to make themselves better than other people. But there were people who dressed to the nines to glorify God and that was one way that they showed reverence and deference to God.

We often look at the past with a modern lens and think that we will certainly learn from their mistakes, and wonder how the church ever survived in such a twisted way of viewing Christian behaviors. We think that we'll do it right. (A note to people of Past Church experience: the church will survive this present age with its mistakes in such a "twisted way" too.) The Past Church was FULL of people devoted to God (as it certainly had its legalists). Perhaps as importnat to recognize, the Past Church IS part of who the Present Church is today because we are Living Stones.

Not a legalistic behavior (I don't think), but I once picketed an Adult Book Store, registering my opposition to the purveyors of pornography. However, I realized that shutting down Towers News wasn't going to rid the world of the pornography problem; not even make a dent. (This was before the internet explosion, by the way.) The answer to our present day issues (whether abortion, gay marriage, pornography, addressing poverty and injustice, or addressing stewardship) is not found in activism of a political nature because NONE of these things deal with the root causes of the issues of their day, or our day.

It sounds so "Sunday School" to say what the answer actually is to each of these issues in our society today, but it is Jesus. Nothing but a heart cleansing will change the world around us: not redistribution of wealth, not good stewardship, because man is depraved and bent toward sin and that continually. It occurs one heart at a time, not by bus ministry (of the past) or "community building" of the present; one heart turned over to Jesus.

Gotta run; my week looks like a busy one so I don't know how active I can continue to be here. I'll try.

Mark

I don't disagree with anything you said above (though I'm not sure what you're saying in the first paragraph).

One of my questions was as to how you have seen these two issues that you singled out handled legalistically? I know lots of people who value those two issues and act upon them believing that they are Christlike in their actions (and I agree with them). I have not heard of anyone in our tradition acting legalistically with them in comparison with the legalism "of old."

Are you predicting or is this a reality that you've experienced?

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't disagree with anything you said above (though I'm not sure what you're saying in the first paragraph).

One of my questions was as to how you have seen these two issues that you singled out handled legalistically? I know lots of people who value those two issues and act upon them believing that they are Christlike in their actions (and I agree with them). I have not heard of anyone in our tradition acting legalistically with them in comparison with the legalism "of old."

Are you predicting or is this a reality that you've experienced?

I think this was a part of what I was getting at as well, however I do still believe there is a distinct difference between saying "we should" and "we shouldn't," and I think it's basically biblical. Paul talks about regulations being "do not taste, do not handle, do not touch," and elsewhere says that we were "created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared in advance for us to do." Jesus said it is not what goes into a person, but what comes from a person, that makes that person holy or unholy. The "old legalism" was all about what we did not do so that we could be distinguished as Christians- we didn't smoke, chew, or go with the girls that do, as it were. These were false litmus tests created in an attempt to easily discern who was in and who was out. This "new legalism" Mark discusses is about Christians who are saying that all Christians should essentially be working for the kingdom. I've yet to meet a Christian social justice enthusiast who says that every single Christian must be engaged in social justice, but I've met plenty who have said that they truly believe the world will know we are Christians by our love, and they show their love for humanity through social justice actions. I don't see anywhere in Scripture that says "if your hemline is above your knees, you cannot be a Christian." I see plenty of places that say we need to be doing good works, bearing fruit, showing our love, etc. etc. I'm also very "legalistic" about believing that Jesus is in fact God, but I'm pretty sure that if it's so well biblically supported, it doesn't matter whether or not you call it legalism, it's still a basic tenet of our faith.

[Hans Deventer]

This video reverberates this discussion, Leonard Sweet:

That's exactly what I was trying to say here http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?35-The-Bible&p=150&viewfull=1#post150

[Sarah Smith]

Perhaps part of the "new legalism" being legalism is the narrow definition of social justice.

My experience has been that it IS narrowly defined. I've been told you cannot be a Christian and want to reduce welfare rolls--where is the social justice for the poor? Sorry, welfare rolls are only one way of addressing poverty. Many folks who are strong venture capitalists ARE interested in social justice. They feel called to fight it with jobs, providing scholarships, and other means of making a way for folks to make a way for themselves.

I've been told you cannot be a Christian unless you are "green." But the definition of green is very limited: drink this, eat this, wear that. Sorry, but many folks choose not to do those things and yet have reduced their footprint on the earth much more than some who do those things.

So in that sense, picking a choosing a few "right answers" while ignoring a host of others, I believe we are still entangled in legalism.

[Bill Morrison]

Perhaps part of the "new legalism" being legalism is the narrow definition of social justice.

My experience has been that it IS narrowly defined. I've been told you cannot be a Christian and want to reduce welfare rolls--where is the social justice for the poor? Sorry, welfare rolls are only one way of addressing poverty. Many folks who are strong venture capitalists ARE interested in social justice. They feel called to fight it with jobs, providing scholarships, and other means of making a way for folks to make a way for themselves.

I've been told you cannot be a Christian unless you are "green." But the definition of green is very limited: drink this, eat this, wear that. Sorry, but many folks choose not to do those things and yet have reduced their footprint on the earth much more than some who do those things.

So in that sense, picking a choosing a few "right answers" while ignoring a host of others, I believe we are still entangled in legalism.


I think you have hit the nail on the head! When I have taught Environmental Science classes at MNU I have tried hard NOT to present my students with a narrow list of things one must do to care for creation. I usually start class by sharing with the students a list of three or four things I do to "be green". I then explain to them why I don't feel they will necessarily do those same actions. We stress the formation of an environmental ethic by each student. Their actions towards the environment will then flow from their ethic. There is more than one way to skin a cat (OH SORRY...that is from my Anatomy & Physiology class!)

BILL

[Dave Mann]

Mark,

I agree that legalism is bad but I prefer to frame the issue differently.

I don't believe that all statements regarding right or expected actions equate to legalism, just as I reject that all statements about right or expected belief equate to fundamentalism. I think it might be easier to see what legalism is, by starting with what it is not.

When Jesus commands us to "Feed the poor", this is not legalism. This is a direct command that demands obedience. Neither can we dismiss it as being a minor point among many in the scriptures. As (theologian?) Al Franken wryly notes, if you took an Exacto knife and carefully cut all all of the passages from your Bible that tell you to feed the poor, you would have enough room to hide Rush Limbaugh's drugs [rim shot].

I believe there is a list of other such principles of expected action that are as equally well founded and inescapable in scripture. They include:

DO
+ Love God with all your heart
+ Seek the unsaved
+ Be courteous to all people
+ Help fellow Christians
+ Seek to do good to the bodies and souls of other humans
+ Contribute tithes and offerings
+ Worship, observe the sacraments and read scripture

AVOID
+ Taking the name of the Lord in vain
+ Profaning the Lord's Day
+ Sexual immorality
+ Habits and practices known to harm the body and mental well-being
+ Quarling, gossiping (just lost 1/2 the church on this one), slandering
+ Being dishonest
+ Indulging in prideful dress
+ Music, literature and entertainment that dishonor God

We may agree to disagree on the particular meaning and implications of these statements in particular settings, times and contexts, but I would assert that these moral expectations are clear, timeless and unavoidable scriptural commands, on par with feed the poor (covered by #5).

Obviously, I didn't just make up that list. That is a crude summary of Article 27 from the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene. This list of behaviors is expected by all who wish to join the church. I don't see how it can be construed as legalism.

Mark, I think our generation has a particularly painful history relative to rules and legalism. We've seen so much abuse of rules, that we've been trained to avoid all talk of expected actions... So much so that I fear that we've collectively fallen mute on the subject of right actions. When I talk to "kids" in their 30s and younger, what I hear are concerns about state sponsored tourture, unhealthy food supplies (the good of the bodies of humans) and conspicous consumption by the west (prideful dress). I am proud that at the core of our denomination's identity, there is a "Covenant of Christian Character" that allows us to have a dialogue about those issues. As we collectively revisit the question of what it means to be Nazarene, I have concluded that Article 27 is at the very center of the matter.

Sadly, in the past 3 years or so that I've been beating the Article 27 drum, I've yet to find a single Nazarene who "knows" what is listed there (other than my Pastor and (former) DS). Almost every Nazarene I know and talk to, including a lot who *should* be familiar with this section of the Manual, are completely unaware of its existence, much less what it says. I take this as symptomatic of just how broken our generation's relationship is with respect to the issue of orthopraxy (right practice). In my opinion, all of us should photocopy Article 27, tape it to our bathroom mirrors and daily contemplate the implications of these scriptural calls.

I've argued that the calls to holy living in Article 27 are not legalism. So what is? Let me offer 2 examples and a great insight I got from one of your father's sermons.

The first example is hypothetical. Let's suppose I started taking the call in Article 27 to avoid practices that are harmful to the body more seriously and conclude that I should endeavor to ride my bike to church whenever possible and to be temperate with respect to drinks and foods that contain high fructose corn syrup. (And this, despite the fact that Jesus miraculously turned wine into corn syrup so his mother could make frosting at a wedding, at least according to the Gospel of St. Imakingthatup.) And then let's suppose that I'm elected to be the new Grand Poobaa of the Church of the Nazarene and as my first decree mandate that all Nazarenes every where and for all time ride their bikes to church and eschew high fructose corn syrup, all in the name of avoiding practices that are harmful to the body. That would be legalism.

I think your dad was a giant among Pastors. I vividly remember one of his sermons where he said (and this is nearly a direct quote) that, "The sin of fundamentalism is thinking that you have God all figured out." With fundamentalism, the devil is in the details and the proper response is not to avoid discussing orthodoxy (right belief), it is to discuss orthodoxy in creedal terms. Our creeds lack a certain amount of detail and it's that ambiguity that allows us to find unity in the essentials.

I've come to believe that legalism is the evil twin to fundamentalism. To recast your dad's words, the sin of legalism the belief that you have holy living all figured out. I belief the proper response to legalism is exactly the same as the response to fundamentalism and that is to adopt a creedal understanding of orthopraxy - one that looks very much like our Article 27.

The second example of legalism, sadly, is not hypothetical. It is the "Special Rules" in our Manual. While I know for certain that each and every statement is the result of a sincere effort of the CoTN's assemblies to discern how to live a holy life, these statements are steeped in particular times and cultures. The devil is in the level of detail they encode and it's that detail that makes them quickly irrelevant and leads to division within the church.

For a long time, I used to think this section could just be recast and moved to back of the manual and included in Chapter IV of the Manual, the section on "Current Moral and Social Issues". I've never once in my entire life heard somebody say, "You can't be a Nazarene unless you're an organ donor" or "You can't be a Nazarene and refuse to accept as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries about origins", although both of those in Chapter IV. Oh wait, I'm wrong. We ripped that second one out of the manual last summer didn't we? (Might as well just lock up the universities, burn the books and be done with it.)

Anyway, I thought for a while that putting the special rules there in the back of the manual along with other statements that might help inform and guide the church but wouldn't lead to legalism would work but I've since concluded otherwise. While I believe that all Nazarenes should tape copies of Article 27 on their bathroom mirrors, I've also concluded that Nazarenes should rip out the pages of the Special Rules and toss them in the trash. There's nothing in the Special Rules that isn't already better covered by the more ambiguous, timeless and creedal statements in Article 27 and if there is anything missing from Article 27, then the church should seek update it with similarly ambiguous, timeless and creedal statements that are equally well rooted in the scriptures.

Of course to do this we'll all have to give up on easy litmus test for being Nazarene. You won't be able to tell it based on whether somebody wears a wedding ring, or plays bridge with playing cards, or goes to movie theaters, or drinks beer or drinks soda pop stuffed with high fructose corn syrup. [Insert reference to Romans 14 here.]


Now, one thing that I think should be added to Article 27 is a call to creation care. As with all other items in Article 27, the question is whether or not there is a clear and overwhelming scriptural mandate to action. I think the case for creation care is obvious and unavoidable.

I reject framing the issue as "resource management". I don't find the term "resource" anywhere in the scriptures. I find "earth" as in, "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it." I find "cosmos", or created order, as in "For God so loved the cosmos that he gave his only son". I find the word "creature" as in, "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you - the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you - every living creature on earth. I find the closely related word "creation" as in, "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by it own choice, by the will of the one who subjected it, in hop that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." The one and only place I hear of God's creation referred to as a resource is in the literature of modern economic theory, which assigns a zero dollar value to undeveloped "resources" and assigns monetary value to derived goods only when they are developed to produce human utility. Stark contrast to "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it." My understanding of scripture is that I can't even fertilize *MY* lawn. It's his.

I would think that Article 27 subsection (5) could be easily extended to include God's good earth and all of God's creatures as being in the circle of concern that we should hold each other accountable for caring for. Doing so would be entirely consistent with my understanding of scripture's description of God lovingly saving plan for his creation.

[Mike Schutz]

Mark,

I agree that legalism is bad but I prefer to frame the issue differently. [...]

Dave,
Thanks so much for this. Read it on a break from writing this Sunday's sermon, the second in a series on "Binding and Loosing: the Scriptures in Christian Community." You've helped me.
Check is in the mail.

(By the way: Saw your dad last week. Great to hear that your mom is doing better.)

[Sarah Smith]

My grandmother taught me Jesus indeed expects us to feed the hungry.

She also taught me that starts first with those at the end of your arm: your own immediate family. My dd teaches public school and dgd attends one. It is appalling to me that in our specific town so many kids are hungry. Yes, many come from poverty and dysfunctional families. Many hungry kids also come from solid upward middle class families.

Perhaps the first step in accountability in fighting hunger is to make sure we actually feed our own families healthy, nutritious meals. I would advocate in the interest of eliminating many of those dysfunctions making those meals eaten together seated around a table with phone and media off.

Once we do that, in addition to making sure those in poverty have actual access to food, we should in the churches hold them accountable to do the same with their own families. It may sound crass and blaming the victim, but that is exactly what was done to my own grandparents. People would help them garden (not hand them money), help them can the produce (not hand them money), provide them with jars and supplies, and then begin inviting my grandparents over for dinner WITH the expectation of reciprocation.

In short, they modelled a healthy family providing healthy meals and enabled my grandparents to acquire the skills necessary to do so.

Now, that was a different time and place and many apartment dwelling families cannot grow their food and put it by. I know that. But perhaps rather than easing our consciences handing out a bit of money to a homeless person or voting to do it en masse through taxes and welfare benefits, we need to once again discipline ourselves to a strong work ethic and strong family ethic. Once we are modelling that behavior, maybe part of our outreach needs to be to call the dysfunctional to our side, and work with them to eliminate rather than reinforce the dysfunction.

Again, how that looks will not be some legalistic "all Nazarenes feed the hungry by doing xyz" but rather each doing what they can where they can. For the mom of young children (or dad of them) that may be just actually cooking a meal instead of zapping one or hitting the fast food joint. For another person it may be working in a food pantry dispensing cooking and planning advice along with the food. For another, community garden involvement. For another, making it big time in business in order to pay for all that food and the good deeds that need to be done.

Whatever the calling, I do believe it must eliminate the "us-them" thinking. That is, the idea that "we" as Christians are obligated to take of the "them" without expectation that the "them" will change. Rather, I believe we must see that there is only "us" and hold all of "us" accountable to eliminate hunger.......some by giving and helping, others by getting jobs and working.

I know I'm rambling--sorry--just trying to think through the concept that whatever the issue--hunger, environment, poverty--social justice requires both a generous spirit on the part of the giver AND change in the life of the recipient.

[Mark Metcalfe]

My thinking is along the line of Bill when he says that we should "stress the formation of an [...] ethic..."

Quoting my essay: Where the Church has fallen short, we applaud and encourage the partial and compromising measures of the secular government to do the good the Church has failed to do. As long as these half-measures are acceptable to people in the Church, then the Church is truly in a post-Christian era.

So Wilson doesn't see this as imbalanced:*


1. Where we cherish and value the innocent lives, we sought government regulation and activism that has led to abominations of violence -- addressing symptoms of a problem and not the root causes of the problem.
2. Where we value two becoming one flesh, being fruitful and multiplying, we seek government regulation, and activism that has led to abominations of violence and discrimination, addressing symptoms of a problem and not the root causes of the problem.
3. Where we care for the poor and desire equal opportunity, we seek and approve of government redistributiom because we are frustrated that the Church has failed - instead of addressing the problem that is in the people in the pews (chairs).
4. Where we should be good stewards - we approve of government telling us what we can eat, what we must use - instead of addressing the problem.

The history of this in the Church can be traced way back. Acts 7:57, 58, and 8:1 shows a person very certain of his faith approving of mob rule.

Social Justice and Resource Management (whether you reject the term or not Dave) are today's issues and are therefore the issues that some will use to litmus-test true Christianity (legalism). These are the issues we'll look back on in a few generations - not for all of you who did it right and preached it well - because it happened in the past and is happening in the present, and will happen in the future.

There were plenty of previous generations who were not party to our past legalisms, who lived righteous lives, some steeped in very disciplined behaviors applied to others would be a legalism, but lived out of the "formation of their ethic" was righteousness before God (as Sampson was when he kept his Nazarite vows).

Mark

*Yes, the church has other issues, arguments that are not quite lost (Billy). These things overlap in time. Social Justice and Environmentalism are the latest on the scene.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I think your dad was a giant among Pastors. I vividly remember one of his sermons where he said (and this is nearly a direct quote) that, "The sin of fundamentalism is thinking that you have God all figured out." With fundamentalism, the devil is in the details and the proper response is not to avoid discussing orthodoxy (right belief), it is to discuss orthodoxy in creedal terms. Our creeds lack a certain amount of detail and it's that ambiguity that allows us to find unity in the essentials.


Dad reads here on NazNet. He has just written a new booklet called "Holiness Made Clear" that can be found on NPH, I think. (I have one of his advanced copies.) He is a giant among Dads, too. (And you can hear those old Wolly sermons on his website - thanks to Esther Sanger and her recording ministry.)

I imagine when I digitize Stephen W. Nease (it's on my list Scott family!), we'll have even more holiness preaching to listen to.

Mark

[Dave Mann]

Social Justice and Resource Management (whether you reject the term or not Dave) are today's issues and are therefore the issues that some will use to litmus-test true Christianity (legalism). These are the issues we'll look back on in a few generations - not for all of you who did it right and preached it well - because it happened in the past and is happening in the present, and will happen in the future.


A lot of issues co-mingled here and I will ignore most of them, particularly the questions regarding public policy. However, I would like poke at the ones quoted above.

While Social Justice and Environmentalism may have current relevancy, I don't see them as being new in any way. The mandate to care for God's creation, or garden, goes all the way back to creation story. Both issues fit prominently in Levitcan law.

I can't see how holding these up as (ambiguously stated but timeless and scripturaly mandated) commandments can be construed as legalism. That seems to be tossing out the baby of scriptural mandates with the bath water of legalistic (specifically stated, time bound and humanly construed) rules and regulations. If I were to tell you that you need to ride your bike to church for the good of the planet, then yes, that is legalism. But if I tell you that you need to care for God's good creation in order to be Christian, then I think I'm squarely in the center of scriptural teaching. Ditto for feeding the poor, being courteous to all and pretty much everything else in Article 27.

Are you suggesting that we can or should ignore these scriptural commands and focus only on the state of our souls? Do you believe that to be even possible? If so, how does that differ from gnosticism? How do you reconcile that with our Methodist tradition?

Just to be clear, I'm 100% with you on the evils of legalism. Like fundamentalism, is sows the promise of certainty and reaps a terrible harvest of division in the church. I'm so convinced of this, that I see no way to fix the problems caused by the special rules of the church.

Article 27 (+ a statement on creation care) = clear scriptural mandates that belong on our mirrors for daily contemplation.
Special Rules = human created additions to scripture that tear apart the church and belong in our dust bins.

[Billy Cox]

Quoting my essay: Where the Church has fallen short, we applaud and encourage the partial and compromising measures of the secular government to do the good the Church has failed to do. As long as these half-measures are acceptable to people in the Church, then the Church is truly in a post-Christian era.

I wonder whether the institutional church can realistically provide the 'social safety net' within a free society.

[Dale Cozby]

Coming into this discussion late I only want to point out that I agree with Mark.

Legalism takes on a who is "in" and who is "out" quality about it. In the Nazarene church legalism has revolved around having a proper sanctification. We unfortunately created a second class member of those who were not holy enough. Today, this holiness is less about avoiding evil and more about doing good works. The new "good works" legalist sees someone "avoiding evil" as a lesser Christian(or not Christian at all) and are often very vocal about, so much so that it is properly called legalism.

[Hans Deventer]

1. Where we cherish and value the innocent lives, we sought government regulation and activism that has led to abominations of violence -- addressing symptoms of a problem and not the root causes of the problem.
2. Where we value two becoming one flesh, being fruitful and multiplying, we seek government regulation, and activism that has led to abominations of violence and discrimination, addressing symptoms of a problem and not the root causes of the problem.
3. Where we care for the poor and desire equal opportunity, we seek and approve of government redistributiom because we are frustrated that the Church has failed - instead of addressing the problem that is in the people in the pews (chairs).
4. Where we should be good stewards - we approve of government telling us what we can eat, what we must use - instead of addressing the problem.

Sure. Because in practice, the root problem has never been addressed to a large enough extent and anyone addressing at least the symptoms, is an improvement over addressing nothing at all.

The real solution is Acts 2 living. That much is clear. I'd be interested to know how to get that done at a nation wide level. For "when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

So what don't really understand is why we should oppose a limited good, because it doesn't address the root of the problem? Example: people get killed in and by cars. We impose speed limits and try to build safer cars. That does not address the root of the problem, but it is a lot better than doing nothing.

[Hans Deventer]

I wonder whether the institutional church can realistically provide the 'social safety net' within a free society.

I don't. It cannot. And when it tried, it was worse than the worst of government regulations.

[Hans Deventer]

Coming into this discussion late I only want to point out that I agree with Mark.

Legalism takes on a who is "in" and who is "out" quality about it. In the Nazarene church legalism has revolved around having a proper sanctification. We unfortunately created a second class member of those who were not holy enough. Today, this holiness is less about avoiding evil and more about doing good works. The new "good works" legalist sees someone "avoiding evil" as a lesser Christian(or not Christian at all) and are often very vocal about, so much so that it is properly called legalism.

Indeed I see people talking about how it is more important to do good, than to merely avoid evil. If love is the fulfilment of the law, and love just cannot be merely avoiding evil, than it might just have a Biblical ring to it. But I have never seen anyone cast out because he/she didn't follow this. Totally contrary to the "avoiding evil" folk, who probably considered deciding who is in and who is out to be their main business in life, in fear of God not being able to do that.

So where's the new legalism?

[Dave Mann]

So where's the new legalism?

I am confused on this same exact question.

If we reject requirements to feed the poor or to tend the garden as legalism, are we not forced to define salvation entirely and only as right belief?

I've made the (what I thought would be heard as radical) recommendation that we tear out the Special Rules section of the manual as being unavoidably legalisitc (and it appears that we're in raging agreement that legalism is bad, so that's good). But Mark and Dale... are you suggesting that even Article 27's requirements are legalistic. Should we tear it it too from the manual? And for good measure, Chapter IV?

[Todd Erickson]

Coming into this discussion late I only want to point out that I agree with Mark.

Legalism takes on a who is "in" and who is "out" quality about it. In the Nazarene church legalism has revolved around having a proper sanctification. We unfortunately created a second class member of those who were not holy enough. Today, this holiness is less about avoiding evil and more about doing good works. The new "good works" legalist sees someone "avoiding evil" as a lesser Christian(or not Christian at all) and are often very vocal about, so much so that it is properly called legalism.

My problem with the (traditional) argument about avoiding evil is that it's internal focus is far more on "how am I avoiding personal sin this week" rather than "how am I living like Christ this week?" With the former, my life is about guilt, and how I've fallen. With the latter, my life is about being like Christ, and being a new creature.

I wouldn't say that somebody who is living a life of "avoiding evil" is a lesser Christian. I'd just say that they've really limited the amount of "new life" that they're welcoming Jesus to share with them.

[Hans Deventer]

I wouldn't say that somebody who is living a life of "avoiding evil" is a lesser Christian.

Well, let me then phrase it differently: if they solely focus on this, they look less like Christ who did precious little indeed to "avoid the appearance of evil", which is of course the favourite text.

[Shea Zellweger]

Well, let me then phrase it differently: if they solely focus on this, they look less like Christ who did precious little indeed to "avoid the appearance of evil", which is of course the favourite text.

Then I'd say they have emptied the house, but failed to re-fill it.

[Billy Cox]

Indeed I see people talking about how it is more important to do good, than to merely avoid evil. If love is the fulfilment of the law, and love just cannot be merely avoiding evil, than it might just have a Biblical ring to it. But I have never seen anyone cast out because he/she didn't follow this. Totally contrary to the "avoiding evil" folk, who probably considered deciding who is in and who is out to be their main business in life, in fear of God not being able to do that.

So where's the new legalism?

Maybe we dislike being told what to do almost as much as we dislike being told what not to do?

[Dale Cozby]

Indeed I see people talking about how it is more important to do good, than to merely avoid evil. If love is the fulfilment of the law, and love just cannot be merely avoiding evil, than it might just have a Biblical ring to it. But I have never seen anyone cast out because he/she didn't follow this. Totally contrary to the "avoiding evil" folk, who probably considered deciding who is in and who is out to be their main business in life, in fear of God not being able to do that.

So where's the new legalism? I have never seen anyone grabbed by the neck and cast out. Usually, in the "refined" and "holier than thou" church circles it takes on the form of attitudes of shunning or gossip or speaking negatively about those "who don't" or those "who do"

So, if a group of people begin to talk about how "God wants us to XYZ" BUT then adds that people "who don't XYZ" aren't very Christlike, and someone who is there isn't doing "XYZ"....well, you have legalism.

[Hans Deventer]

I have never seen anyone grabbed by the neck and cast out. Usually, in the "refined" and "holier than thou" church circles it takes on the form of attitudes of shunning or gossip or speaking negatively about those "who don't" or those "who do".

You're fortunate to have missed that. I've heard way too many stories where that's exactly what happened.


So, if a group of people begin to talk about how "God wants us to XYZ" BUT then adds that people "who don't XYZ" aren't very Christlike, and someone who is there isn't doing "XYZ"....well, you have legalism.

Sure. "God wants us to love each other. People who do not do that aren't very Christlike". You may quote me on that. And now I'm a legalist??????????

[Dale Cozby]

You're fortunate to have missed that. I've heard way too many stories where that's exactly what happened. What happened? A)being grabbed and thrown out? or B)being shunned and gossiped about? I have seen lots of B and none of A.


Sure. "God wants us to love each other. People who do not do that aren't very Christlike". You may quote me on that. And now I'm a legalist??????????
LOL, That is a simplified statement all can accept, but legalism is what happens when someone begins to tell us how that love is supposed to behave. WITJWD is turned into WWJD.

The legalism sets in when we attempt to answer with authority: How does one properly show Christlike love to....the pedophile, the homosexual, the drug addict, the homeless beggar, the wife beater, etc? Who gets to speak for God?

Who decides what Christ would do? and consequently what Jesus wouldn't do.
The new legalism is replacing: "What I think Jesus wouldn't do" with "What I think Jesus would do"

[Mark Metcalfe]

I cannot add more value to what Dale has said... but I can add a few words. ;-)

Several have inferred that I meant that you can either do what the Lord commands and be a legalist, or you can ignore what the Lord commands. (Black and white thinking, isn't it?) I believe that I have also addressed this in my essay where Jesus speaks to people who follow Jewish law. One of the key phrases for me is what Jesus says, "these things ought ye do" (if I remember my King Jame Version well enough). He does not dismiss behaviors that are right and proper, but He puts them into the perspective of doing so with the proper priority of a right heart.

Therefore, it is right to feed the poor, exercise proper stewardship of creation, treat others as you would want to be treated. These things are not in contention. To reiterate my point however, these issues are likely [the latest] ones to become bent out of proportion - just as good things have been bent in the past. We believe that we view the past with 20-20 vision, but I think we too often view the past [Church] with modern lenses so that it is difficult to see how our present day is really not so much different than the larger continuum we're on.

Mark

Maybe I'll have more time this weekend, but it is going to be sunny and very pleasant with a good chance of scattered guests here at the Manor. So, we'll see.

[Dave Mann]

Several have inferred that I meant that you can either do what the Lord commands and be a legalist, or you can ignore what the Lord commands. (Black and white thinking, isn't it?)


Mark, I hope you don't think I'm inferring anything by my questions in response to you. I simply don't understand what you are saying yet and seeking clarification. You know me, man!! If I disagree, I'll come out and say it - no inference needed!!


Therefore, it is right to feed the poor, exercise proper stewardship of creation, treat others as you would want to be treated. These things are not in contention. To reiterate my point however, these issues are likely [the latest] ones to become bent out of proportion - just as good things have been bent in the past. We believe that we view the past with 20-20 vision, but I think we too often view the past [Church] with modern lenses so that it is difficult to see how our present day is really not so much different than the larger continuum we're on.


I'm still not following this...

By "bending out of proportion" are you saying that you agree with my position that
a) it is a good thing to have vague, creedal and open to differing interpretation statements about right actions like we have in Article 27 (they should be contemplated daily) but
b) it is a bad thing to have closely worded, time bound and non-ambiguous statements about right actions like we have in the "Special Rules (they should torn out and thrown away)?

Or, are you saying that among the list of right actions to avoid or to do,
a) we should prioritize among the virtues holding some to be more important and others less important and
b) the only problem with social justice and creation care is that some people wrong advocate that they should be too high on the list and thus out of proportion?

[Dale Cozby]

If I might add this thought: I have generalized a concept from Paul's letter to the Romans.
"Accept him whose faith is (not like yours), without passing judgment on disputable matters.... One man considers one (act of love) more (Christlike) than another; another man considers every (act of love) alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one (act of love) as special, does so to the Lord. He who (performs an act of love), (loves) to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who (denies his own desires), does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another...."

The temptation to say, "Because you do not love like me, you are not as Christlike as me" is always there, no matter what action or self-denial we may be making.

[Hans Deventer]

LOL, That is a simplified statement all can accept, but legalism is what happens when someone begins to tell us how that love is supposed to behave. WITJWD is turned into WWJD.

I guess we should stop preaching then?


The legalism sets in when we attempt to answer with authority: How does one properly show Christlike love to....the pedophile, the homosexual, the drug addict, the homeless beggar, the wife beater, etc? Who gets to speak for God?

So we should preach WITHOUT authority?


Who decides what Christ would do? and consequently what Jesus wouldn't do.

I lost count of how many times you asked that question. Are you really seeking an answer?

But if you are so clueless about what Jesus would do, why are you preaching? Become an existentialist. They believed to act was all that matters. Whether you kick on old lady down the street or help her cross it makes no difference.


The new legalism is replacing: "What I think Jesus wouldn't do" with "What I think Jesus would do"

Well, it's always a lot better to try to follow Jesus and make a mistake, then to do nothing. I still don't have the faintest idea what you guys mean by the new legalism.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

If I might add this thought: I have generalized a concept from Paul's letter to the Romans.
"Accept him whose faith is (not like yours), without passing judgment on disputable matters.... One man considers one (act of love) more (Christlike) than another; another man considers every (act of love) alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one (act of love) as special, does so to the Lord. He who (performs an act of love), (loves) to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who (denies his own desires), does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another...."

The temptation to say, "Because you do not love like me, you are not as Christlike as me" is always there, no matter what action or self-denial we may be making.

Dale - who here is disagreeing with the notion above? Maybe you were just adding to the discussion: thanks. BC, we had a thread all about Romans 14 - I think we can all agree that Romans 14 is a great way to live life, albeit difficult in the particulars sometimes.

What the rub is for us is the level at which the Church can speak prophetically ("into" the lives of the people). I still maintain that preaching that Christ wants us to take care of the lacking is not legalistic in the least. And preaching "get your heart right first" before taking care of those lacking falls short of the gospel.

[Mark Metcalfe]

What the rub is for us is the level at which the Church can speak prophetically ("into" the lives of the people). I still maintain that preaching that Christ wants us to take care of the lacking is not legalistic in the least. And preaching "get your heart right first" before taking care of those lacking falls short of the gospel.

I disagree.

Now, I don't want to get too deeply into the faith and works discussion, knowing that the two are companions, except to say that there is a precedence. You can do all the good works you want and still go to hell. To my mind, that falls short of the gospel. "What does it profit a man... [to do anything]... if he loses his soul?"


Are we preaching heart cleansing at all, being so focused on the prophetic "good deeds" message?
Does it matter if a person gets right with God as long as he is charitable? Does being charitable get one right with God?
In the old conference, I posed the question "What is the gospel?" Just what is it that we are preaching?


Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

Hans,

Preach with the authority of the Spirit. I have heard in several ordination services (is the admonition in every one?) where the General Superintendent charges the ordinand to "Preach the Word." Good biblical preaching is a treasure. (I've heard too many topical sermons to know the difference.)

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

Are we preaching heart cleansing at all, being so focused on the prophetic "good deeds" message?

Yes. There is no clean heart without, "given time and opportunity", as Wesley used to say.


Does it matter if a person gets right with God as long as he is charitable? Does being charitable get one right with God?

Yes. No.


In the old conference, I posed the question "What is the gospel?" Just what is it that we are preaching?

I'm preaching that God so loved the world that He gave his only Son, so that whoever believes in Him, will not perish, but have eternal life.

Then I explain that "believe" has precious little to do with sheer mental assent, and that eternal life is not just getting to heaven, but means knowing God and following Jesus. In short, living in the Kingdom of God. And I explain that "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

If that's the new legalism, I am guilty as charged. But my guess is that I still have no clue what you are talking about. Could anyone please give me a simple definition?


Preach with the authority of the Spirit. I have heard in several ordination services (is the admonition in every one?) where the General Superintendent charges the ordinand to "Preach the Word." Good biblical preaching is a treasure. (I've heard too many topical sermons to know the difference.)

That's what I try. I'm not much of a story teller anyway, I'm more of an expounder, though I do try to link the Word to our daily lives as well.

It's a pity all my sermons are in Dutch, otherwise you could check for yourself. Quite a few can be found online.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Now, I don't want to get too deeply into the faith and works discussion...

But that's what it is. I don't think there should be a discussion "between" the two either. Can people "do" with a heart of anger? Certainly. Can people "be" without doing? No. (Well, I suppose for those who want to subscribe to some kind of gnostic existentialism.) For we who follow an incarnated Lord (that is, the One who lived a life among - and as one of - humanity), we too shall have an incarnational ministry in the world.

It's my position that people are indeed changed by what they do. The discipleship of following Christ takes the same kind of "practice" that other kinds of followings do. We can't sit and hope that the Holy Spirit is simply doing a work in us. "Doing" can lead to changing...us. So (in addition to the desire to actually help people) we do as Christ did in hopes that by serving in the same Spirit that he did, we might become more like him. If I want to be more like Michael Jordan, I should try and practice and do what he does. So if we confine discipleship to a circle of Bible Study or Sunday School, we've cut short what discipleship is (just look how Christ discipled his first disciples - showing them what it is to care for people, and they replicate this work in Acts).

My grandmother made a shirt one time for my brother with the saying on it: "You got to do what you ought to do to be free to do what you want to do." I think he wore it once, but the phrase has never left me. It takes more than practice, but to arrive somewhere, we often have to try to get there in order to actually get there.

I can already feel the accusations of preaching a "salvation by works" (perhaps because I grew up with the same warnings as you), but I've not said a word above about salvation. (See below *)


..., knowing that the two are companions, except to say that there is a precedence. You can do all the good works you want and still go to hell. To my mind, that falls short of the gospel. "What does it profit a man... [to do anything]... if he loses his soul?"


I can toss back a bunch of scripture: Matthew 25 (it's notable that the only criterion for salvation in this passage is what people did...no mention of faith, hearts, etc.); the rich young ruler, to whom Jesus says nothing about "being" (heart), but tells him what he must do; Cornelius in Acts 10, a pagan whose generous alms and prayers were said to be received as "a memorial before God";

Frankly, there is a lot of scripture to support what you're saying, because for sure we should seek to "do" beyond for the sake of doing. But your position runs away with "salvation by faith only" to an extent I don't believe is there in the totality of scripture. There is no priority between faith and compassionate works.


Are we preaching heart cleansing at all, being so focused on the prophetic "good deeds" message?
That's quite a leap, Mark. You began this discussion by throwing the label of legalism on caring for the poor and disadvantaged. What I'm responding to is that to broadly paint as legalists those who would preach or teach that we must do good acts of compassion to, for, and with the poor is an unfair assumption. Just the same, it is unfair to assume that any who preach that we must do acts of compassion do not preach "heart holiness."

I'd still like to know how you have seen this in actuality (the legalistic nature of these endeavors)?


Does it matter if a person gets right with God as long as he is charitable? Does being charitable get one right with God?
(*)This seems to imply that righteousness before God is settled in a complete finality at some single point during one's life. The timeline isn't that clear (unless perhaps one subscribes to "once saved, always saved"). Jesus died for all a while ago (and it was thus "accomplished" way before you or I or any of us breathing even existed). The judgment is yet to come. While we can appreciate and seek the crisis moments of faith ("acceptance" of Christ, even a crisis moment of the beginning of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, etc.), we can not rely on them as hard as you are suggesting. If anything...that borders on a legal-speak that is only but a part of the gospel. Speaking of...


In the old conference, I posed the question "What is the gospel?" Just what is it that we are preaching?
For one example in Luke 7: Jesus said, "‘Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them."

Your son-in-law could explain it way better than I can, but I know enough Greek to know that "good news" here is indeed ευαγγελιζονται (euangelidzontai), a form of "gospel."

Compassionate work is not subsequent to our gospel; it is at the heart of it. We relegate compassionate work to filling shoe boxes at Christmas and banana boxes in times of crisis (as if they only happen when CNN tells us they do). It's a shame that compassionate ministry in the CotN drifted away from the local church to an auxiliary and a box in the corner (http://graceandpeacemagazine.org/en/blogs/gap-blogs/45-food-pantry-box), or a response to public catastrophe only, etc., instead of serving as the heart of what the church does.

I know you're a busy man, but perhaps the greatest picture of this kind of understanding was served to me in Nazarene elder, Bryan Stone's Evangelism After Christendom (http://www.jeremydscott.com/2009/09/book-response-evangelism-after.html). It's a hefty read, but it's spot on.

(I'm headed out of town for a week tomorrow and may not be able to respond right away.)

[Mark Metcalfe]

1 Corinthians 13:1-3

If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

P.S. Social justice <> caring for the poor (just as 5 <> 2 even though 5 has 2 in it)

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I John 3:16-18

We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action.

We could do this until our Bibles are worn out.

Even so, I already acknowledged that we can "do" without loving (I said, in "anger," regardless, the point is the same). But I don't think we can [learn to] love without doing. Love is not an internal state of being.

[Tim Bourland]

This lengthy discussion with all it's embedded tensions (not necessarily negative), reminds me of an incident in my very first church. I was attempting to lead the congregation through a refocus (long before that term was in vogue). On Sunday nights, I was using the time for intensive personal evanglism training. One Sunday night, in the middle of my lesson...literally while I was taking a breath between sentences...a dear "saint" blurted out that she "was tired of all this 'reaching lost people' stuff, she just wanted to be fed!" It was obvious that she had been setting on that one for a while and finally couldn't hold her tongue any longer.

At another place I "got in trouble" for reminding the people on a regular basis:
"It's not about me, it's about Him." (always got alot of amens on that one...)
"it's not about us, it's about them." (always got alot fo silence on that one...)

Who is it all about?

[Hans Deventer]

1 Corinthians 13:1-3

If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

And as a good Wesleyan surely you know that "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Galatians 5:6 (King James Version)

I hope I'm wrong, but I think you're trying to separate faith from action. Love from doing. Word from deed. Indeed we're totally in the old faith/works discussion. It might be worthwhile to read Wesley's sermon "On Working Out Our Own Salvation (http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/085.htm)"



4. But what are the steps which the Scripture directs us to take, in the working out of our own salvation? The Prophet Isaiah gives us a general answer, touching the first steps which we are to take: "Cease to do evil; learn to do well." If ever you desire that God should work in you that faith whereof cometh both present and eternal salvation, by the grace already given, fly from all sin as from the face of a serpent; carefully avoid every evil word and work; yea, abstain from all appearance of evil. And "learn to do well:" Be zealous of good works, of works of piety, as well as works of mercy; family prayer, and crying to God in secret. Fast in secret, and "your Father which seeth in secret, he will reward you openly." "Search the Scriptures:" Hear them in public, read them in private, and meditate therein. At every opportunity, be a partaker of the Lord's Supper. "Do this in remembrance of him: and he will meet you at his own table. Let your conversation be with the children of God; and see that it "be in grace, seasoned with salt." As ye have time, do good unto all men; to their souls and to their bodies. And herein "be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord." It then only remains that ye deny yourselves and take up your cross daily. Deny yourselves every pleasure which does not prepare you for taking pleasure in God, and willingly embrace every means of drawing near to God, though it be a cross, though it be grievous to flesh and blood. Thus when you have redemption in the blood of Christ, you will "go on to perfection;" till "walking in the light as he is in the light," you are enabled to testify, that "he is faithful and just," not only to "forgive" your "sins," but to "cleanse" you from all unrighteousness." [1 John 1:9]

III. 1. "But," say some, "what connexion is there between the former and the latter clause of this sentence? Is there not rather a flat opposition between the one and the other? If it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do, what need is there of our working? Does not his working thus supersede the necessity of our working at all? Nay, does it not render our working impracticable, as well as unnecessary? For if we allow that God does all, what is there left for us to do?"

2. Such is the reasoning of flesh and blood. And, at first hearing, it is exceeding plausible. But it is not solid; as will evidently appear, if we consider the matter more deeply. We shall then see there is no opposition between these, "God works; therefore, do we work;" but, on the contrary, the closest connexion; and that in two respects. For, First, God works; therefore you can work. Secondly, God works, therefore you must work.



7. Secondly, God worketh in you; therefore you must work: You must be "workers together with him," (they are the very words of the Apostle) otherwise he will cease working. The general rule on which his gracious dispensations invariably proceed is this: "Unto him that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not," -- that does not improve the grace already given, -- "shall be taken away what he assuredly hath." (So the words ought to be rendered.) Even St. Augustine, who is generally supposed to favour the contrary doctrine, makes that just remark, Qui fecit nos sine nobis, non salvabit nos sine nobis: "He that made us without ourselves, will not save us without ourselves." He will not save us unless we "save ourselves from this untoward generation;" unless we ourselves "fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold on eternal life; "unless we "agonize to enter in at the strait gate," "deny ourselves, and take up our cross daily," and labour by every possible means to "make our own calling and election sure."

[Benjamin Burch]

I disagree.

Now, I don't want to get too deeply into the faith and works discussion, knowing that the two are companions, except to say that there is a precedence. You can do all the good works you want and still go to hell. To my mind, that falls short of the gospel. "What does it profit a man... [to do anything]... if he loses his soul?"


Are we preaching heart cleansing at all, being so focused on the prophetic "good deeds" message?
Does it matter if a person gets right with God as long as he is charitable? Does being charitable get one right with God?
In the old conference, I posed the question "What is the gospel?" Just what is it that we are preaching?


Mark

I'm so lost here, Mark. Where does Scripture say this? I see this tossed around constantly in Evangelical circles but it's simply untrue to:

(a) Scripture
(b) Protestant Tradition
(c) Wesleyan Theology

You cannot... I repeat... cannot do "all the good in the world and still go to hell." You cannot.

Scripture never says anything like this. Protestant tradition has upheld "Total Depravity" which states that we cannot do such "good" without Christ! This is itself rehashing the "faith/works" dichotomy which you claimed you wouldn't do.

If we believe in total depravity and in Scripture, it is impossible for one to look like Christ with works and possess the fruits of the Spirit without the Spirit of Christ. Impossible.

Why do we build a theology out of the idea that it's possible? This I will never understand.

The life lived in the flesh is not one of "good works lacking faith." No. It is one which cries out "What a wretched man I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death!?"

Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Benjamin Burch]

Are we preaching heart cleansing at all, being so focused on the prophetic "good deeds" message?


How clean is a heart that does not do good deeds?
(this is the question our Catholic/Orthodox tradition would be more interested in asking)



Does it matter if a person gets right with God as long as he is charitable? Does being charitable get one right with God?

How is an uncharitable heart right with God?
(this is the question our Catholic/Orthodox tradition would be more interested in asking)



In the old conference, I posed the question "What is the gospel?" Just what is it that we are preaching?


The Gospel is:

(a) the Son of God took on flesh and
(b) was crucified and died and
(c) was raised to life by God the Father and
(d) exalted as Lord over all creation

(this is how our Catholic/Orthodox tradition would answer that question)

Now, what does that mean? It means that God has done a new thing in the world and has called us to live into it. God has called us to incarnate Jesus' life and bring about resurrection in the world as part of the new work God has begun in the resurrection. It means God has vindicated Jesus for his message that God's reign was coming and that those who wished to be a part of it must live by it.

This has massive implications for what we "do." How are we justified in calling that legalism? James seemed to think that the only religion God would accept was one full of "do's."

I guess I'm still lost on where this legalism is.

[Billy Cox]

At another place I "got in trouble" for reminding the people on a regular basis:
"It's not about me, it's about Him." (always got alot of amens on that one...)
"it's not about us, it's about them." (always got alot fo silence on that one...)

Who is it all about?

This is a good question and one that the church seems to answer, whether anyone outside the clergy is asking or not. We have songs saying that worship isn't about us, it's about God. Evangelism 101 aims to reset the expectation that the church exists for church people.

So, if the church isn't about me, why does anyone care whether I'm there or not?

I'm all for the church becoming more inclusive and less grouchy, but are we shooting ourselves in the foot by preaching that the Kingdom is all pain and sacrifice with the only reward being accrued in the afterlife.

[Dave Mann]

Preach with the authority of the Spirit. I have heard in several ordination services (is the admonition in every one?) where the General Superintendent charges the ordinand to "Preach the Word." Good biblical preaching is a treasure. (I've heard too many topical sermons to know the difference.)

Mark

“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” - St. Francis

[Dave Mann]

Dale and Mark, I have a question of clarification for both you... Not arguing. Just trying to understand your positions.


If I might add this thought: I have generalized a concept from Paul's letter to the Romans.
"Accept him whose faith is (not like yours), without passing judgment on disputable matters.... One man considers one (act of love) more (Christlike) than another; another man considers every (act of love) alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one (act of love) as special, does so to the Lord. He who (performs an act of love), (loves) to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who (denies his own desires), does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another...."

The temptation to say, "Because you do not love like me, you are not as Christlike as me" is always there, no matter what action or self-denial we may be making.




Now, I don't want to get too deeply into the faith and works discussion, knowing that the two are companions, except to say that there is a precedence. You can do all the good works you want and still go to hell. To my mind, that falls short of the gospel. "What does it profit a man... [to do anything]... if he loses his soul?"


Are we preaching heart cleansing at all, being so focused on the prophetic "good deeds" message?
Does it matter if a person gets right with God as long as he is charitable? Does being charitable get one right with God?
In the old conference, I posed the question "What is the gospel?" Just what is it that we are preaching?




I've gone on record as saying that I the special rules should be torn out of the Manual but that I think section 27 (and section 26) are at the core of our Nazarene identity.

Dale, in fact, Romans 14 has been formative in my thinking on this.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&version=NIV

In my reading, Paul does not question that we should eat to the Lord, but rather that we should keep it between ourselves and God on whether that means eating meat from idols or not. In my mind, this means we keep section 27 but toss out the Special Rules.

My reading of what you both have been saying here suggest that you might also think that section 27 should either be removed or, at the very least, demoted in some way. The Manual is very clear on this point, Nazarenes are to affirm section 27 as a qualification of membership, placing a commitment to action on par with a commitment to beliefs (as specified in section 26).

Given what you've written, could either of you describe how or why you think that section 27 should stay in the manual?

Again, not arguing. Really want to understand what you are saying here.

[Tim Bourland]

This is a good question and one that the church seems to answer, whether anyone outside the clergy is asking or not. We have songs saying that worship isn't about us, it's about God. Evangelism 101 aims to reset the expectation that the church exists for church people.

So, if the church isn't about me, why does anyone care whether I'm there or not?

I'm all for the church becoming more inclusive and less grouchy, but are we shooting ourselves in the foot by preaching that the Kingdom is all pain and sacrifice with the only reward being accrued in the afterlife.

I certainly don't see the "pain" in this, Billy...but you make a good point. I guess I wonder when we reach the point of minimal requirement to obedience to the great commission.

My point is that there is an appropriate level of spiritual shepherding where the pastor leads the sheep to get their eyes off of the little patch of grass they happen to be munching on at any given moment, lead them to see that the Shepherd is trying to move them on to true greener pastures. I would contend that as we obediently reach out and give ourselves away, we will be continually refreshed...we will grow. And, therefore, it is inherently "about us." So even though "it's about them" it is also so much "about me." We just don't say it that way. We must always join the Father in watching and waiting for the prodigals to return home, all the while knowing that all that we need we already have...in the Father's house.

That's the way i've found it to be, anyway. But...then again...maybe I'm just masochistic... :-)

[Sarah Smith]

I think we are getting off the scripture pretty far.

The Bible makes it clear that there is none righteous, no, not one. At it makes it clear that all our RIGHTEOUSNESSES are as filthy rags.

So no one CAN do all those good deeds and earn salvation. No one. Not the best of us.

We who are Nazarene in theology believe in two crisis moments of faith: one where we STOP TRYING to earn salvation and receive it as a gift. And one where HE CLEANSES our hearts--imparted righteousness.

The marks of person who has experienced that are manifold. Among them will be the strong desire to avoid evil AND the strong desire to obey and do those good works.

The legalism comes in two forms: those that want to rely on good works for salvation. Those tend to be the pharisee type, defining good works as the deeds they do and damning others for not doing the same works. And it also comes in the form of those that refuse to allow the Holy Spirit to guide. Example: yes, scripture tells us to care for the poor. But it DOES NOT equate that with "you must support higher welfare benefits, refuse to buy products we decide are bad, run a soup kitchen." Those MAY be things the Holy Spirit will lead the saved and sanctified to do. But they may not be. It could also be that the Holy Spirit will guide you to move your business to a new area where you can employ some of those poor.

Again, I don't think anyone sees good deeds as bad or even optional.

Just some of us don't see them as saving but rather as the results of salvation. And we don't believe we can fill in the details for another person. If God has called you not to own a car, but has called me to own one and drive it for meals on wheels, I'm content to trust you to listen to the Holy Spirit and expect the same courtesy from you.

I believe the job of the church (the visible organized body) is the transformation of souls. And I believe transformed souls in turn then transform society.

But I believe very strongly that if we focus on transforming society WITHOUT first seeing transformed souls, we will not see society transformed AND we will be consigning souls to hell.

[Billy Cox]

I certainly don't see the "pain" in this, Billy...but you make a good point. I guess I wonder when we reach the point of minimal requirement to obedience to the great commission.

I think it's dangerous to try and identify the minimal requirement. Remember the story of the rich young ruler? He was devout in keeping the Law yet felt he still lacked something, so Jesus gave him something to do that would be 'impossible' for him to do.


21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matt. 19:21

What if the Great Commission is already fulfilled, and has been for at least a generation or more? By spending so much time 'obeying the Great Commission', are we like the Jews, still looking for a Messiah after he has already lived and died?


My point is that there is an appropriate level of spiritual shepherding where the pastor leads the sheep to get their eyes off of the little patch of grass they happen to be munching on at any given moment, lead them to see that the Shepherd is trying to move them on to true greener pastures. I would contend that as we obediently reach out and give ourselves away, we will be continually refreshed...we will grow. And, therefore, it is inherently "about us." So even though "it's about them" it is also so much "about me." We just don't say it that way. We must always join the Father in watching and waiting for the prodigals to return home, all the while knowing that all that we need we already have...in the Father's house.

I think that a pastoral theology built on the shepherd analogy feels pretty archaic and possibly even patronizing to a literate and educated congregation. I completely understand that the good shepherd loves the sheep and lays down his life for them, but I wonder sometimes whether the local pastor is typically a good shepherd or simply a franchise manager.

Would any evangelist actually be content to wait for prodigals to return? If there's anything we know about the Holy Spirit's timetable, he's pretty lackadaisical by our standards. :)


That's the way i've found it to be, anyway. But...then again...maybe I'm just masochistic... :-)

Haha, the spiritual gift that we never talk about, but frequently reward.

[Billy Cox]

We who are Nazarene in theology believe in two crisis moments of faith: one where we STOP TRYING to earn salvation and receive it as a gift. And one where HE CLEANSES our hearts--imparted righteousness.

This isn't the way of salvation I'm familiar with. I understand salvation in terms of repentance and forgiveness leading to regeneration. I understand entire sanctification in terms of gaining freedom from the human impulse to reimburse God for what he gave us freely; 'unlearning' the instinct to do again what has already been done.


The marks of person who has experienced that are manifold. Among them will be the strong desire to avoid evil AND the strong desire to obey and do those good works.

It's a nuanced difference I suppose, but I see evidence of a regenerate heart as the strong desire to obey and do good works gradually supplanting the desire to do evil. So there is a time and a place for the biblical admonition to avoid evil...right there with strained peas, burp rags and my favorite binky.


Just some of us don't see them as saving but rather as the results of salvation. And we don't believe we can fill in the details for another person. If God has called you not to own a car, but has called me to own one and drive it for meals on wheels, I'm content to trust you to listen to the Holy Spirit and expect the same courtesy from you.

It's one of the great conundrums of faith...to take a live-and-let-live approach even toward people and organizations whose mission it is to enslave us to *their* way of living.


I believe the job of the church (the visible organized body) is the transformation of souls. And I believe transformed souls in turn then transform society.

There is a lot of baggage behind talking about people as though their soul is the redeemable part and that the rest of the person is just rotting meat. More often than not, I have heard 'soul' terminology used as an excuse to get people to make a decision for Christ; providing some temporal needs (food, shelter, clothing), if it will help to close the sale, but certainly not as an indefinite arrangement.


But I believe very strongly that if we focus on transforming society WITHOUT first seeing transformed souls, we will not see society transformed AND we will be consigning souls to hell.

I agree, but in a sideways manner. Society and people are intertwined in such a way that transforming one has transformative impact on the other. Red Kool-Aid is comprised of water and flavored powder mixed together. Can anyone chill only the red without also chilling the water that it's dissolved into?

I think that if we want to save people from hell, we could start with those who are already there.

[Sarah Smith]

Billy, I believe hell is a real place. If any are there, they are beyond our reach.

Now, if someone is living in "hell on earth" of course we can try and make it better.

We can feed a person, give them the opportunity for a bath, offer a job, and in many ways make their life better....in the here and now. But if that is ALL we do, their hereafter is still literally hell for eternity.

I'm not saying we focus on saving their souls and never tell them what a mature Christian looks like. No way. I am saying if they get truly saved and sanctified they are bound to change their behavior. When enough of us do that, we are bound to change the world.

Neither am I saying we focus on saving their souls and then let them depart hungry.

Evidently we need to pass the strained peas and the burp rags, because in my community a lot of folks that claim to be Christians cheat, lie, scheme, commit adultery, falsify tax forms, fornicate, murder, rape, and just about any evil you can name. Now, either those folks are not Christians (strong possibility) or they could use a strong dose of "avoid evil."

But those same folks do brag that they drink fair trade shade grown coffee, serve at the soup kitchen, drive eco friendly cars, and many are even off grid. They don't want to discuss avoiding evil--they consider themselves toooooooo sophisticated and educated as Christians to need to bother with avoiding evil.

My personal suspicion is that folks that want to focus on "doing good rather than evangelizing" have never experienced salvation or sanctification.

I have the same suspicion about those that claim to be evangelized but produce no good works.

Its no conundrum. Unsaved people can what we people consider good works. Doesn't make'em saved.

But saved people WILL do good works.

[Tim Bourland]

I think it's dangerous to try and identify the minimal requirement. Remember the story of the rich young ruler? He was devout in keeping the Law yet felt he still lacked something, so Jesus gave him something to do that would be 'impossible' for him to do.

So you might say, he discovered his "minimal" when Jesus told him about the one thing he lacked.


What if the Great Commission is already fulfilled, and has been for at least a generation or more? By spending so much time 'obeying the Great Commission', are we like the Jews, still looking for a Messiah after he has already lived and died?

As if we've actually reached the point where the Great Commission is fulfilled. Which of course, we haven't. So...how can it be a negative thing for us to keep doing what we must to obey the Lord's directive?

[Billy Cox]

As if we've actually reached the point where the Great Commission is fulfilled. Which of course, we haven't. So...how can it be a negative thing for us to keep doing what we must to obey the Lord's directive?

I realize that the standard interpretation of the Great Commission sees fulfillment in terms of every individual person on planet Earth hearing the Gospel, but I don't see that in the text.

What I do see is an imperative that can be fulfilled only on an ongoing basis, not in terms of how broad our market penetration is, but in terms of discipling - which entails baptizing and teaching.

[Tim Bourland]

What I do see is an imperative that can be fulfilled only on an ongoing basis, not in terms of how broad our market penetration is, but in terms of discipling - which entails baptizing and teaching.


I agree with you in part, but I see it as both.

In business, great customer service expands the market penetration (translation: larger customer base). As the market penetration improves, it will put stress on the business to constantly maintain high levels of customer service in order to keep those new customers. The two work hand in hand.

[Dave Mann]

I'm not saying we focus on saving their souls and never tell them what a mature Christian looks like. No way. I am saying if they get truly saved and sanctified they are bound to change their behavior. When enough of us do that, we are bound to change the world.
<re-ordering>
But saved people WILL do good works.


Linda, I will need to add you to the list of Mark and Dale and ask if you could defend the existence of section 27 in the Manual. Note, I'm not arguing here, I'm asking for clarification. The implication of my reading of what you are writing is that the CotN should focus on it's doctrines and article 26 in an effort to lead people to sanctification. After that, we can/should rely on the Holy Spirit's leading in that life since, "saved people will do good works." Would you be OK with removing both the special rules and article 27?




But those same folks do brag that they drink fair trade shade grown coffee, serve at the soup kitchen, drive eco friendly cars, and many are even off grid. They don't want to discuss avoiding evil--they consider themselves toooooooo sophisticated and educated as Christians to need to bother with avoiding evil.


I find these sorts of generalizations less than helpful. Nearly all of the people I know who do such things are very, very, very focused on avoiding evils. They just emphasize a different set of evils.

Just to be clear where I'm coming from, I think the special rules is counter to scripture (particularly Romans 14) and should be torn out of the Manual entirely. But, I also think that a call to a holy life, stated in vague, general and in need of interpretation type language is a scriptural mandate and for this reason, I think we should continue to embrace article 27 as central for membership in the CotN.

If we agree that article 27 should continue to be tied to membership in the CotN (and we may not be in agreement, you may feel it should be removed, I'm not sure) then I would suggest that the things "those people do" are, in fact, very much in line with article 27.

[Sarah Smith]

Yes, I think the special rules section could and probably should be removed.

I think it comes from a good place--but I don't think we can describe holy behavior in special rules.

In my grandmother's day, wedding rings were indeed proscribed. But in the time and place she lived there WAS a good, non legalistic reason behind it. With so many starving, literally, spending money on jewelry was just plain unfeeling. Remember, there was no govt safety net for hungry people then.

Today the situation is changed, and so I think most of us probably see wedding rings as aok unless frightfully expensive beyond the means of the couple wearing them.

So the good impulse has gotten rule bound.

In the same way, whatever special rules we come up with are probably equally foolish. I'd much rather you exhort me to take care of the planet without, say, telling me not to use my dryer. Trust me to listen to God and care for the planet the way He tells me. I might use my clothesline, but I might choose to use the dryer and walk everywhere I go. You might not be able to do the latter but have no allergies so line dry.

But if we put "thou shalt not use the dryer" or "thou shalt not own a car" I really believe we would be foolishly pharasaical.

And yes, I've known good folks keeping the new legalism rules as well as people keeping those rules and expecting God to accept them because of that.

Just the same could be said about the old rules.

So I strongly believe we focus on salvation, on sanctification, and on teaching scripture. Folks that are saved and sanctified AND knowledgable about scripture and striving to obey it will do what needs to be done in their own location and situation.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Thank you, Linda. Well said.
I think much of the discussion I have been in has been talking past each other. As you point out, the saved obey the Spirit and do good works. Either others are not reading for understanding or they simply missed it being stated repeatedly. I think everyone knows that faith without works is dead (which is why I said I didn't want to go "too deeply" into it - because everyone knows it and doesn't need it rehashed, but perhaps I was wrong about that) - but there IS a precedence.

[Hans Deventer]

Thank you, Linda. Well said.
I think much of the discussion I have been in has been talking past each other. As you point out, the saved obey the Spirit and do good works. Either others are not reading for understanding or they simply missed it being stated repeatedly. I think everyone knows that faith without works is dead (which is why I said I didn't want to go "too deeply" into it - because everyone knows it and doesn't need it rehashed, but perhaps I was wrong about that) - but there IS a precedence.

Mark, I'll save it for 29th of September. Perhaps it's simply a matter of you seeing things in the world where you live that I don't see where I live. It might be as simple as that.

[Billy Cox]

Trust me to listen to God...

This is the issue at the very core of legalism. Organizations typically don't trust people. What happens to this house of cards of ours if we let people listen to God and then they come to the 'wrong' conclusions?

[Mark Metcalfe]

Several thoughts on the thread:

@Jeremy: answering Scripture with Scripture* does not negate or contradict Scripture, but Scripture informs other Scripture. To that point (See @Billy below):

@Billy and the powdered drink mix analogy (and 1 Cor. 13:1-3): One can have water added to water and it is still only water (good works), but one cannot have powder (faith) without the water (because it would be dry and useless), and one cannot have the flavored drink (the Spirit) without the powder (faith) with the water (works). Some people may think that water alone is refreshing and nice (and it is) but it lacks the power and eternal qualities. (John 4:7-14 seems apropos here.)

@Dave: I misplaced my manual and I may have one that is out-of-date. Links to online sources would be helpful when referring to articles and such. I just don't have it memorized.

@Hans: We're still on for September. We may want to steer clear of one or two subjects, but you are welcome wholeheartedly.

Mark

* I prefer it when people use Scripture as their bases (plural) for opinion (along with the other three legs: reason, tradition, and experience).

[Jeremy D. Scott]

@Jeremy: answering Scripture with Scripture* does not negate or contradict Scripture, but Scripture informs other Scripture.

I didn't say that they negated or contradicted each other. My point was that for us to simply list a passage of scripture without commentary as if that settles it could go on for a while.

I'm still wondering how it is that you have seen these two issues acted upon legalistically. This continues to be my unanswered question: what makes it such that the very mention of these two issues creates a basis for legalism?

Legalism does not surface due to the specifics of activity or non-activity. Legalism surfaces from an attitude. Simply listing specific issues and saying that anyone who preaches or teaches those specific issues is quite irresponsible. Any issue, activity, etc. can become legalistic: study and use of scripture can be legalistic. But for me to simply say that anyone who preaches or teaches, "Study your Bible," is preaching legalism would be irresponsible, unfair ("assuming"), and ultimately, wrong.

Do people have to "get saved" before their reading or scripture is valid too? Or can scripture be formative before that crisis moment upon which you're very heavily relying?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

This short video with Ron Sider (http://www.theworkofthepeople.com/index.php?ct=store.details&pid=V00772) doesn't really add anything to the discussion. But it resonates with it.



http://vimeo.com/12112710

[Dave Mann]

@Dave: I misplaced my manual and I may have one that is out-of-date. Links to online sources would be helpful when referring to articles and such. I just don't have it memorized.


You see? This is how the softening of the church begins. First, the youth no longer memorize the manual. Then they "forget" to bring it to Sunday School and have to run into the sanctuary for a pew copy. And finally, they don't even have one in their home.:D

Here is a link to the "old" manual [1]:
http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Manual2005_09.pdf

Paragraph 26, the "Agreed Statement of Belief" starts on page 39.
It begins thusly:

26. Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to
church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate,
we would require only such avowals of belief as are
essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief
in the following brief statements to be sufficient.

Paragraph 27, the "The [General Rules] Covenant of Christian
Character", start on page 40. It starts out with:

27. To be identified with the visible Church is the blessed
privilege and sacred duty of all who are saved from their
sins and are seeking completeness in Christ Jesus. It is
required of all who desire to unite with the Church of the
Nazarene, and thus to walk in fellowship with us, that they
shall show evidence of salvation from their sins by a godly
walk and vital piety; and that they shall be, or earnestly desire
to be, cleansed from all indwelling sin. They shall evidence
their commitment to God—

Note that both are required for membership.

My question to you (and to Dale and to Linda) is this....

Can you defend why Nazarenes should be ascribe paragraph 27 as
contingent for membership?

In asking this, note that I do *NOT* feel all things in the manual should
be there. Specifically, I think the Special Rules (much more detailed
than paragraph 27) should be torn out and burned. I think they are
in violent opposition to the range of freedom described in Romans 14.

But, I do feel the requirements of paragraph 27 do pass the test of
scriptural mandate. These are general principles of behavior that I
think carry the weight of commands.

But, based on what you (and Dale and Linda) have written, I would
think that you might feel that Nazarenes shouldn't hold each other to
these requirements as that would be legalistic.

Must emphasize that I'm not arguing here.... I'm honestly trying to
understand your position.

Can you justify the inclusion of paragraph 27 in the Manual?


[1] - This is the version of the manual that still contains an affirmation of the
acceptance of scientifically validated statements regarding creation, a section
that was removed last year. Given that the church no longer officially recognizes
the role of science in reading God's revelation through his creation, it is simply
beyond me how the denomination can justify it's support of its colleges and
universities.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Note that both are required for membership.

The Manual is hazy on this. While it's clear from what you quoted, earlier on, there is contradictory statement, bold emphasis mine:


IV. Agreed Statement of Belief
26. Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to
church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate,
we would require only such avowals of belief as are
essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief
in the following brief statements to be sufficient. We believe:
26.1. In one God—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
26.2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given
by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith
and Christian living.
26.3. That man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore,
inclined to evil, and that continually.
26.4. That the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally
lost.
26.5. That the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the
whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes
on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and
saved from the dominion of sin.
26.6. That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent
to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
26.7. That the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth,
and also to the entire sanctification of believers.
26.8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised,
and the final judgment will take place.

[Dave Mann]

The Manual is hazy on this. While it's clear from what you quoted, earlier on, there is contradictory statement, bold emphasis mine:

Jeremy,

What is unclear or contradictory here?

My reading is that Nazarenes are called to affirm both 26 and 27 for membership. There may be ambiguity
in terms of what, if anything, gets added to that, which I think varies according to region, pastor, DS and
what not. For ex, it is *very* ambiguous whether or not the Special Rules are required, subject to being
ignored entirely or handled in the traditional manner.

Oh... the traditional manner of handling the Special Rules is to talk around them, and when forced to
discuss them, to use hazy hedge words unless of course you don't like the person you're talking to
or about and then you can quote them chapter and verse to drive them out of the church. The
classic stuff of legalism, imo.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

What is unclear or contradictory here?

I'm not sure what more to add other than to say that the Manual says that affirmation of the statements found in 26.1-8 to be sufficient for church membership (and hence, nothing more). Paragraph 27 adds to what has already been said to be sufficient (affirmation of 26.1-8)

[Dave Mann]

I'm not sure what more to add other than to say that the Manual says that affirmation of the statements found in 26.1-8 to be sufficient for church membership (and hence, nothing more). Paragraph 27 adds to what has already been said to be sufficient (affirmation of 26.1-8)

Ah. I read this passage differently.

As I see it, para 26 is directed towards required statements of belief (orthodoxy) and 27 is directed towards required statements of practice (orthopraxy).

In parsing para 26, I think the key clause is what is in bold below.


26. Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to
church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate,
we would require only such avowals of belief as are
essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief
in the following brief statements to be sufficient.


In my reading, this is clarifying that para 26 is constrained in scope to only apply to those issues of belief that the CotN deems as being essential. There is nothing in para 26 that suggests that either belief and belief alone are essential, nor that para 26 itself is all that is essential.

Adding to this, I think para 27 is very clearly stated as being essential. Note the language in bold.


27. To be identified with the visible Church is the blessed
privilege and sacred duty of all who are saved from their
sins and are seeking completeness in Christ Jesus. It is
required of all who desire to unite with the Church of the
Nazarene, and thus to walk in fellowship with us, that they
shall show evidence of salvation from their sins by a godly
walk and vital piety; and that they shall be, or earnestly desire
to be, cleansed from all indwelling sin. They shall evidence
their commitment to God—

So, if one were to argue that para 26 was both necessary and sufficient for membership on all matters, I think that one would need to a) make the case that the Manual says that belief and belief alone are sufficient and that no other qualifications beyond belief are required (I don't see that in para 26) and b) find a way to argue around the language in para 27 that we are required to evidence our salvation and commitment to God by [insert body of para 27 here].

This is why I'm wanting to get clarification from Mark, Dale and Linda on this point. Among the list of things that are required by all Nazarenes is that they seek...


... to do good to the bodies and souls of men;
feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick
and imprisoned, and ministering to the needy, as opportunity
and ability are given (Matthew 25:35-36; 2 Corinthians
9:8-10; Galatians 2:10; James 2:15-16; 1 John 3:17-
18).

One interpretation of what Mark, Dale and Linda have been saying is that belief is, in fact, all that matters and that there should be no requirements for action for membership in the CotN. That is, one implication of what I think they've been saying is that para 27 should either be removed, or perhaps modified to make it clear that that church does not really require all Nazarenes to evidence their faith by working for compassionate ministries, or any of the other things listed in para 27.

Again, I don't see this as legalism. In my way of thinking, it becomes legalistic if we, by example, require all churches to run a homeless shelter in their basement. In my mind, that would be counter to Romans 14, but pretty much in line with the detailed garbage in the Special Rules. Well intentioned as the Special Rules are, they gotta go.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

As I see it, para 26 is directed towards required statements of belief (orthodoxy) and 27 is directed towards required statements of practice (orthopraxy).

I like your reading of it.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:hRJtQMgR6_fKtM:http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab236/Adison4eva/Animated%20smiley%2000/th_smiley_two_thumbs_up.gif

*Edited to add:
...but I think we could reword it to be even stronger.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I'm still wondering how it is that you have seen these two issues acted upon legalistically. This continues to be my unanswered question: what makes it such that the very mention of these two issues creates a basis for legalism?

Legalism does not surface due to the specifics of activity or non-activity. Legalism surfaces from an attitude. Simply listing specific issues and saying that anyone who preaches or teaches those specific issues is quite irresponsible. Any issue, activity, etc. can become legalistic: study and use of scripture can be legalistic. But for me to simply say that anyone who preaches or teaches, "Study your Bible," is preaching legalism would be irresponsible, unfair ("assuming"), and ultimately, wrong.

Do people have to "get saved" before their reading or scripture is valid too? Or can scripture be formative before that crisis moment upon which you're very heavily relying?

Re: instances of legalistic behavior:
Some cases are where people wonder if the church should have spent money on a chandelier or other such thing instead of sending that money to Haiti, and calling into question the proper Christian response. Or how about criticizing the type of car a person buys when a lesser car will do and the rest of the money used for good purposes; or why a car at all?

Re: "anyone who preaches "study your Bible" is preaching legalism"
Not what I said or wrote; perhaps you have read into my words.

Re: last point
I don't understand how it fits into the discussion.

The following comes from an exchange I had with my son-in-law: (emphasis added)

Some people see social justice as leveling the playing field, while others see it as leveling the outcomes. For example, I encourage an equal opportunity for every person, but I do not encourage equal treatment or an equal share – meaning that everyone should not be allowed to be a pastor or a technical writer just because they want to be equal with other pastors and technical writers. All men are not created equal in the sense that there are very few Tiger Woods-level golf players in the world. Social justice* often strays into this sort of leveling because there are so many reasons people are “poor in every sense of the word.”

I am using the term “leveling” in reference to what you said about “the task of the Church is to seek to restore the oppressed and the oppressor” because some people want to define “oppressor” as anyone who has an advantage, whether direct or indirect. I am therefore an oppressor because my white skin comes from people who dominated a social structure, a few of whom [though not in my family tree] were true oppressors and slave owners. Some believe this to be reason enough to “make things right” for the perceived oppressed persons (the disadvantaged). I do not. Several quotes have been attributed to Abraham Lincoln (but weren’t his), one of which says, “You cannot make a weak man stronger, by making a strong man weaker.” This is why leveling opportunity is [more] “fair” [than leveling outcomes]. (The definition of “fair” is one of the differentiators between liberals (progressives) and conservatives.)

My observation is that social justice* – though couched in platitudes of defending the poor and oppressed – is focused more on socialization, a leveling of resources to all people. You called “the establishment of Christ’s kingdom…an eschatological hope” which I reinterpret to mean there is an ideal method and model of Christ’s kingdom, and you point to the early Church in Acts as that model. You will get no argument from me that we are to be about the business of healing and caring for those in our community**. I submit, however, that the First Century Church is not a model of behavior that should be mimicked today. Hippies and other Christian sects have joined communes in efforts to achieve [an] ideal of “sharing everything in common” and most (if not all) have failed to achieve the ideal. Pragmatically, the organization collapses under its own weight. (The USSR collapsed for similar reasons!)

Without getting too lengthy, my view is that the focus on the model of the First Century Church misses the mark of what the Kingdom of Christ is to be in the 21st Century. As the Church spread into all the world, it did so into all the different social, political, and economic systems and cultures over the centuries. The Church of Christ is applicable in any political situation: capitalism, socialism, communism, you name it, because the Church exists apart from it – “in the world but not of it” – and it thrives in each and any system. [One system is not more "Christian" than the other.] What we have in common with all the phases of the Church is Matthew 25:34-41 to be charitable – this is never in dispute!

Matthew 25 is also illuminating in its earlier verses where 5 virgins were NOT shared with because they were foolish; and in verse 28, the master orders that the talent be taken from the least (and lazy) man and given to the one who had the most! (Why not give the middle guy a little more?) So, while charity is always a trait of a Christ-follower, the leveling that social justice* seeks is often not charity nor charitable.

[Mark]

* how some people think of “social justice”

** When the disciples got together to appoint people to care for the widows, I believe it was the widows in their community. Not the widows everywhere, but the widows who were joining their ranks. Some might call that internally focused.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Paragraph 27, the "The [General Rules] Covenant of Christian
Character", start on page 40. It starts out with:

27. To be identified with the visible Church is the blessed
privilege and sacred duty of all who are saved from their
sins and are seeking completeness in Christ Jesus. It is
required of all who desire to unite with the Church of the
Nazarene, and thus to walk in fellowship with us, that they
shall show evidence of salvation from their sins by a godly
walk and vital piety; and that they shall be, or earnestly desire
to be, cleansed from all indwelling sin. They shall evidence
their commitment to God—

My question to you (and to Dale and to Linda) is this....

Can you defend why Nazarenes should be ascribe paragraph 27 as
contingent for membership?

[...]

But, based on what you (and Dale and Linda) have written, I would
think that you might feel that Nazarenes shouldn't hold each other to
these requirements as that would be legalistic.


My thoughts on membership as it regards your queston:

1. Membership does not equal Salvation; therefore it is not legalistic to require a member to ascribe to certain conduct or promises anymore than it would be to require a band member to wear a uniform to march in the Independence Day Parade.

2. Having stipulated #1, "membership" in the Church of the Nazarene has not followed its own rules - people can wear just about any "uniform" they want and still be part of the band. Therefore, I think the idea of membership loses just about all meaning in the Church of the Nazarene except for the annual approval of board members, the occasion approval of spending large funds, and the occasional calling of a Pastor (also limited to board members).

Distinctiveness used to be important - so that people could be easily identified with something. Today's church eschews it.
I don't place a high value on membership (as a political expression).

Mark

[Ryan Scott]

** When the disciples got together to appoint people to care for the widows, I believe it was the widows in their community. Not the widows everywhere, but the widows who were joining their ranks. Some might call that internally focused.

I think this is the piece people miss most often. The Church is called to create a separate existence within the dominant culture. The Church is to present an alternative way of doing things. One of the issues I see with modern Christians is that we've tried to create the alternative and still participate in the dominant system. I'm not sure we can have both and yet I struggle to find ways to separate myself from this system.

I can still affirm that the Christian community should be one in which hungry people are fed, sick cared for, lonely comforted, etc. The problems I see are on both sides - those who wish to transform the dominant system to a Christian system and those who wish to participate in the dominant system with a Christian attitude (both of which I'm guilt of perpetuating, perhaps all of us are.)

Neither of these seem tenable on a mass scale - we see examples of people like Mother Theresa or Shane Claiborne, but we don't see how it would work for us. This is where our communal creativity needs to be engaged more thoroughly. We can't truly present an alternative while still invested in the system that "is passing away" as scripture says.

[Tim Bourland]

The problems I see are on both sides - those who wish to transform the dominant system to a Christian system and those who wish to participate in the dominant system with a Christian attitude (both of which I'm guilt of perpetuating, perhaps all of us are.)


The thought occurs to me: remember when Jesus prayed for his disciples in John 17:15? - "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one."

It's almost as if he's praying that they will "participate in the dominant system with a Christian attitude."

[Ryan Scott]

The thought occurs to me: remember when Jesus prayed for his disciples in John 17:15? - "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one."

It's almost as if he's praying that they will "participate in the dominant system with a Christian attitude."

I don't see that there at all. I'm not sure we can interchange the word "world" between this physical place we inhabit, which is how Jesus uses it and the "unChristian" system as Paul uses it.

Nor do I think we can ignore the example of the early Christians and still treat scripture with integrity. We have to take seriously the example they set for us.

There is a Kingdom that is coming, one ushered in by Christ and a Kingdom that is passing away. We inhabit a world with both Kingdoms active, but we're called to live in just one.