Can We Have A Little Flexibility?

[WannaWitness]

It's great to see this thread on a Christian forum. So much of the religious narrow-mindedness leads to fragmentation, doubt, and self-righteousness... all tools of the Devil. There IS room for flexibility without full-blown relativism. I often cite Romans 14 - I did earlier today in another thread, in fact. If you maintain a connection with God and His word, you'll see the right path for you. It may be different, but no less Christian than the next person.

Great post.

That's one of my personal favorite Scriptures (and one I also find myself bringing up at times). While it goes without saying that we as believers will have different convictions and opinions on what a holy life is (and it's even okay for reasonable debate), we should never get to the point of "one-uping" each other, and saying a certain conviction makes us "holier" than another person who may not have the same conviction. After all, our common bond is having Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, and when we're all in heaven together, none of those petty little differences is going to matter anymore.

 

[Johnnz]

Biblical wisdom includes humility. Dogmatists seldom display that characteristic.

John
NZ

 

[Brother-Ruben]

I think you're absolutely right. There should be more flexibility expressed by Christians. The lovely brothers and sister in my church always joke and call me a "heathen" when work desperately needs an extra hand on Sunday morning, but everybody knows they don't mean it. There is an understanding that certain things need to be done on a Sunday. I think this principle is found in Matthew 12.

As long as you don't neglect meeting with and being encouraged by fellow Christians, it's all cool.

Just my opinion. =)

 

[tucker58]

A personality trait which many Christians are not known for is FLEXIBILITY. I'm not saying that Christians ought to compromise on their basic values, but rather, that it is beneficial and wise to be flexible about the FORM in which those values are expressed. For example, I believe that it is important for every Christian to read and to understand the basic meaning of the Bible. But I don't think that every Christian needs to set aside a "quiet" time every day to read Scripture. Another example is church. I do believe that besides private prayer and bible study, that Christians ought to worship God and be part of a community with other Christians. But I don't think that every Christian needs to go to church every week. These are my thoughts--what do you all think?

There is a concept called, "being indwelt by God." Jesus said that He was in the Father and that the Father was in Him and that He was in us. That makes our body the temple of God and our heart the altar of that temple. In theory we take God and Jesus with us where ever we go at all times and we even take God and Jesus to church when we go to church. God does not dwell in a church, He dwells in the individual Christians that attend that church.

love,

tuck

 

[Alive_Again]

If you consider the Bible as the blueprint for a successful life, you'll want to meditate on what He says all of the time. Also, you'll want to know what it says. If we're going to be held accountable also, we'll want to know what that is. Right?

 

[salamacum]

I've got a thread going on the reformed board about whether we should be thinking radical ideas about the movements we see in the world. Can these be part of a wholesome purpose (eg they are the unpaid bills of the church)?
The last posting was just dismissive - bang, bang bang, that's all those dealt with - all of the devil. Lots of proof texting, no context, no humility.
Maybe it's a sign of phariseeism. The need to have everything buttoned down. No wonder Jesus came to offend them (and us!!). Samaritans doing good, tax-collectors getting into the kingdom before the children of Abraham, God being able to raise up stones as children of Abraham, unless you become as a little child...

 

[Lemmiwinks]

I don't think believers need to go to church every week - however I think the more you miss out on regular disciplines of a relationship with God, the weaker that relationship becomes. (If we don't talk to our best friend every week, how long until that relationship weakens?).

It seems like the relationship is a one way street sometimes.

Sometimes I think, "Ok Lord, I've prayed, I've witnessed, I've gone to church, i've read the bible -- now its your turn Lord, now its your turn to do something."

 

[salamacum]

Biblical wisdom includes humility. Dogmatists seldom display that characteristic.

John
NZ

Can you define what a dogmatist is so I can recognise one? Just so I don't confuse him with someone who is "earnestly contending for the faith"
Or maybe it's the same.

 

[Johnnz]

Its a mixture of attitude and belief bundled together. Healthy debate occurs when the parties are genuinely interested in reaching an understanding of the other's position - what some have called 'double vision' - having your own views and those of another's clearly recognised. There is always an underlying belief that I may be wrong or too restricted in my understanding, if I can be convinced of that. You can debate strongly but retain respect and relationship.

A dogmatist is not open to change. The only outcome is to accept their understanding. They listen only to refute. The worst of them are impenetrably right; neither facts nor logic will move them. These are the 'fundamentalists' whether religious, political, activist or whatever. Debate leads to exclusion or condemnation for not agreeing with 'the truth'.

John
NZ

 

[grainofsalt]

I think if a person is going to church every week and wants to take a week or 2 off, it could be beneficial. It allows the person individual freedom and unforced faith while the after effect will be missing the fellowship and making the person realize the value of the church. This course is a very generalized outcome. I think the biggest risk with missing church is that we as humans tend to make new things into "habbits". Ofcourse sometimes if a person keeps missing a church that they have attended for a long time, there could be some underlying relationship reasons. ok I'll stop before I turn this into a rant.

 

[WannaWitness]

True flexibility also means being able to view all sides of various issues. That's not being "wishy-washy"; it's what's called being open-minded.

That's just what I honestly feel.

 

[Conservativation]

I can view all sides, even fully understand them....sometimes even respect how the person got there, and yet disagree and be inflexible.

 

[salamacum]

< < It's what's called being open-minded. > >

Of course one person's open-mindedness is another's lack of discernment.

 

[WannaWitness]

< < It's what's called being open-minded. > >

Of course one person's open-mindedness is another's lack of discernment.

I see your point, as I am aware things can be carried too far (that is, accepting every goofball thing that's out there). What I am referring to when it comes to open-mindedness is just enough so to be able to see (and respect) another person's perspective on a given issue. Not just in politics, but in other issues as well. For instance, everyone is familiar with the all-too-common CCM debate. One side believes it is a wholesome alternative to a lot of the mainstream pop and rock music (which glorifies sex, drugs, and other immoral lifestyles), while the other thinks that such styles are "ungodly" because it supposedly originated from "pagan tribal beats" (among many other "factors"), and accuses those who happen to prefer contemporary music of "not caring about truly pleasing God" (while many times not looking at the flaws and weaknesses in their own lives). But this is why Romans 14 is among some of my favorite Scriptures. The very first verse speaks of disputes over "doubtful things", and there is a huge variety of issues that can be plugged in here (such as what I mentioned, and other things like Bible translations, pants on women, and so on), then goes on to say in the chapter that what might be wrong for one believer might not be for another believer (mentioning eating meat as an example), encouraging respect (and I still think that reasonable debating is okay, in its proper perspective) and eventually agreeing to disagree while realizing we will all have different opinions on various matters.

I hope this makes things a little clearer. God bless you.

 

[salamacum]

Its a mixture of attitude and belief bundled together. Healthy debate occurs when the parties are genuinely interested in reaching an understanding of the other's position - what some have called 'double vision' - having your own views and those of another's clearly recognised. There is always an underlying belief that I may be wrong or too restricted in my understanding, if I can be convinced of that. You can debate strongly but retain respect and relationship.

A dogmatist is not open to change. The only outcome is to accept their understanding. They listen only to refute. The worst of them are impenetrably right; neither facts nor logic will move them. These are the 'fundamentalists' whether religious, political, activist or whatever. Debate leads to exclusion or condemnation for not agreeing with 'the truth'.

John
NZ

Hello Johnnz,

I have heard a justification of the above attitude as "beware of the 3%, (or 1%) leaven which corrupts true doctrine into apostasy. I mean, can anybody live like that?

 

[Johnnz]

They have a closed system using ad hominem clichés - liberal scholarship, feminist conspiracy, just need the bible, Paul scorned learning and just preached Jesus, deception, mere worldly knowledge as examples - that avoid and thereby prevent any meaningful exchanges. The example you quoted is another example.

John
NZ