"Extremism"

[DZoolander]

So - there've been some discussions on here that have taken the direction of how some people take more "extreme" stands w/respect to the Bible/it's interpretation/literalism/etc. For instance the discussion about that lady who was part of the quiverfull stuff - and how her church might have been more "extreme" in it's readings/etc.

I'm curious about your attitudes on that...and I'm trying to think of the best way to convey my question...so here goes.

Everything is a matter of degrees in life - and everything falls on a spectrum. Some people embrace ideas a little, some people embrace ideas a lot. Everyone has their cutoff point where they find balance between what they believe and what they're comfortable doing.

In cases where people are trying to be literal with the Bible, do you believe that "the more you do - the more righteous you are"? Is a more "extreme" position - cushioned by the caveat that it's more literal in it's interpretation of the Bible - a more Godly position than a less "extreme" one in your eyes?

Like - are those more "extreme" people in that church/movement closer to righteousness due to their more fervent attempts to follow the letter of the Word to a tee than those that are more relaxed in their interpretations?

Thoughts?

 

[Annessa3]

No.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No.

Agreed. No one is in any way close to righteousness and no action they may attempt to take will make them so. The particular action may be righteous but the person is still far from it. we ought not take righteous actions in order to become righteous we ought to take righteous actions because they are righteous. I cannot attain righteousness by my actions but I am made right with God by the actions of God.

 

[ValleyGal]

Imo, extremism is not good and certainly does not lead you to righteousness. I've seen literalists and non-literalists both be extreme and it is not a good reflection of Jesus. Plus, don't confuse extremism for passion.

 

[DZoolander]

I totally agree.

However, I've seen so many times people who take really strict/passionate or "extreme" positions on something - when questioned on it - take the stance of "Isn't that what it says in the Bible?"

...and then the person questioning them really has nothing left to argue with...because in fact...that is what it says in the Bible.

 

[DZoolander]

Which of course leads to the inevitable "Not a true Christian" implications.

 

[ValleyGal]

Sometimes, what the Bible really says is different from what we in the 21st century western English believe it to say. I also think that you can use the Bible to balance the measure of extremism. For example, the Bible does indeed say that if our eye causes us to sin, we should gouge it out for it is better to enter the Kingdom without an eye as opposed to not at all (paraphrase). Does that mean we need to gouge out our eyes because we think someone else's spouse is hot, or because we saw a movie with some nudity? No....it needs to be tempered with biblical teaching on mercy, grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, transforming our hearts and minds to the likeness of the Lord Jesus. Imo, there is almost always a way to temper extremism, which is supported by the principle that God calls us - to be of sound mind and judgement.

 

[LinkH]

So - there've been some discussions on here that have taken the direction of how some people take more "extreme" stands w/respect to the Bible/it's interpretation/literalism/etc. For instance the discussion about that lady who was part of the quiverfull stuff - and how her church might have been more "extreme" in it's readings/etc.

I'm curious about your attitudes on that...and I'm trying to think of the best way to convey my question...so here goes.

Everything is a matter of degrees in life - and everything falls on a spectrum. Some people embrace ideas a little, some people embrace ideas a lot. Everyone has their cutoff point where they find balance between what they believe and what they're comfortable doing.

In cases where people are trying to be literal with the Bible, do you believe that "the more you do - the more righteous you are"? Is a more "extreme" position - cushioned by the caveat that it's more literal in it's interpretation of the Bible - a more Godly position than a less "extreme" one in your eyes?

Like - are those more "extreme" people in that church/movement closer to righteousness due to their more fervent attempts to follow the letter of the Word to a tee than those that are more relaxed in their interpretations?

Jesus' problem with the Pharisees was not their literal interpretation. He probably agreed with them on a number of matters of basic Judaism. He took what you might consider a rather literalistic and strict view of the Torah/Pentateuch based on the sermon on the mount. His problem with the Pharisees is that they 'say and do not.'

If someone has all kinds of knowledge of the word of God and claims to believe in it, if he's doctrinally orthodox, but if he doesn't obey the word (e.g. by loving his neighbor, honoring his parents, etc.) then he isn't living a righteous life.

The media uses 'extremist' to refer to bombers who kill people, blow up airplanes or militants who shoot down airplanes. I don't think any of us are in favor of that sort of 'extremism.'

But God does want His children to be extreme. Jesus was so extremely devoted to His beliefs that He died on the cross for our sins. Jesus said that anyone who loves father and mother more than Him is not worthy of Him. That's extreme. He told one man to sell all he had and give to the poor. That's extreme.

Paul was so extreme that he traveled around the Mediterranean, preaching while being beaten, shipwrecked, stones, persecuted, and evil spoken of. Stephen was so extreme that he held true to his confession of faith even though it cost him his life.

What seems strange to me is having namby pamby faith. Jesus said that the lukewarm, He would spew out of his mouth. If Jesus believed God gave the Old Testament, and He is Lord, why shouldn't we? If God raised Jesus from the dead, why shouldn't we believe He did all those other miracles and that the apostles did miracles.

I haven't seen all of the types of things in the New Testament in real life, but I have seen some things. I've seen evidence of spectacular healing, obviously supernatural gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge in operation, and the amazing work of God in answering extremely specific prayer. It seems to me that those who do such things tend to be the type of people that actually believe the stuff in the Bible happened. I don't know of anyone who functions in healing who thinks all the healing miracles should be cut out of the Bible. I don't want to live in a reality of unbelief or partial belief in what God has revealed, including His promises. I want to believe more. In a lot of ways, I want to become a lot more 'extreme' than I am now, more extreme in love, more extreme in seeking to do God's will, more extreme in how hard I work, and more extreme in believing the word of God. If I have a problem with being extreme, my problem is that I am not extreme enough.

 

[sdmsanjose]

EZ you specifically mentioned the

“…lady who was part of the quiverfull stuff”

As a follow up on ValleyGal’s post where she stated

“…the principle that God calls us - to be of sound mind and judgment.”

I would like to give a biblical reference that I think can be used to engage our sound mind and judgment That reference below is 1 Timothy 5:8

1 Timothy 5:8
8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Now you can take the quiverfull lady and her church thoughts and then take into consideration the biblical passage of Timothy.

Now using your sound mind and judgment you can see where the Bible has a stiff and serous warning about not providing for your family. So popping out a dozen or more children has to be weighed against the Timothy scripture that warns you that you must be able to provide for your family or there are serious spiritual results.

By EZ
Like - are those more "extreme" people in that church/movement closer to righteousness due to their more fervent attempts to follow the letter of the Word to a tee than those that are more relaxed in their interpretations?

In the case of the quiverfull situation, if those church/movement people do not take into consideration the other scriptures, such as 1 timothy, and use their sound mind and judgment then they are taking an extreme position without the whole wisdom of the bible.



The Bible is full of wisdom but some people fail to utilize all the wisdom of the Bible and then take an extreme position and try to convince others that God backs them up on their extreme actions.

 

[seeingeyes]

So - there've been some discussions on here that have taken the direction of how some people take more "extreme" stands w/respect to the Bible/it's interpretation/literalism/etc. For instance the discussion about that lady who was part of the quiverfull stuff - and how her church might have been more "extreme" in it's readings/etc.

I'm curious about your attitudes on that...and I'm trying to think of the best way to convey my question...so here goes.

Everything is a matter of degrees in life - and everything falls on a spectrum. Some people embrace ideas a little, some people embrace ideas a lot. Everyone has their cutoff point where they find balance between what they believe and what they're comfortable doing.

In cases where people are trying to be literal with the Bible, do you believe that "the more you do - the more righteous you are"? Is a more "extreme" position - cushioned by the caveat that it's more literal in it's interpretation of the Bible - a more Godly position than a less "extreme" one in your eyes?

Like - are those more "extreme" people in that church/movement closer to righteousness due to their more fervent attempts to follow the letter of the Word to a tee than those that are more relaxed in their interpretations?

Thoughts?

Extremists don't usually consider themselves extremists...

 

[seeingeyes]

But God does want His children to be extreme. Jesus was so extremely devoted to His beliefs that He died on the cross for our sins. Jesus said that anyone who loves father and mother more than Him is not worthy of Him. That's extreme. He told one man to sell all he had and give to the poor. That's extreme.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. What is the point of a half-[bless and do not curse] faith? (Unless you're a politician, I suppose...) All-in or all-out are the only honest states.

 

[mkgal1]

But God does want His children to be extreme. Jesus was so extremely devoted to His beliefs that He died on the cross for our sins. Jesus said that anyone who loves father and mother more than Him is not worthy of Him. That's extreme. He told one man to sell all he had and give to the poor. That's extreme.

.....and I'm not surprised that's often lifted up as the standard in churches. But.....just out of our own sanity.....shouldn't there be room to question certain paths? To imagine where those roads lead (even though the beginning looks "safe")?

I just listened to a message given at a woman's conference (not at a cult-like gathering....but a mainstream large national church)....and the message was, "God will keep and protect you". Sounds nice.....right? Sounds biblical....and within God's nature.....correct?

The subject of the message was about the childhood of the speaker --how her parents were missionaries in dangerous countries (and God always kept and protected them). She also spoke about her husband....and how he'd once planned on killing her (had the gun ready.....loaded....and waiting for her to come back from church)...."God kept and protected her" through that as well. I wonder how many listeners heard that as "extremism"? I know I sure did.

Another example (I'll keep this brief).....was a simple little phrase I caught while visiting a church with a friend. She had a background of dealing with lots of abuse, so I was hyper-sensitive and trying to listen through her ears---I heard, "when push comes to shove.....the man has the authority to make the decisions". Well.....my friend knew about "pushing coming to shoving"......and I will not go to that church again (neither will she)......but loads of others sat through that without even a wince.....and keep coming back. That's too extreme for me.....(but doesn't seem to make that impression on thousands of others).

 

[LinkH]

Another example (I'll keep this brief).....was a simple little phrase I caught while visiting a church with a friend. She had a background of dealing with lots of abuse, so I was hyper-sensitive and trying to listen through her ears---I heard, "when push comes to shove.....the man has the authority to make the decisions". Well.....my friend knew about "pushing coming to shoving"......and I will not go to that church again (neither will she)......but loads of others sat through that without even a wince.....and keep coming back. That's too extreme for me.....(but doesn't seem to make that impression on thousands of others).

That doesn't sound extreme to me. Usually, the idiom 'when push comes to shove' has nothing at all to do with physical violence.

 

[Odetta]

I guess I define extremism as legalism. If I am so intent on following a Christian rule, however it was developed from scripture (interpreted correctly or not) - that I forget all about Jesus' message of grace, then I've missed the whole point of the Bible. If I only focus on part of the Bible, then I've missed the overall message of the Bible.

And I agree that extremism should not be confused with passion. Passion is not exclusionary or judgmental, like extremism/legalism can be. It is inspiring to those who are in a less passionate place.

 

[mkgal1]

That doesn't sound extreme to me. Usually, the idiom 'when push comes to shove' has nothing at all to do with physical violence.

I'm not surprised that doesn't sound extreme to you. Whether or not it's in the physical context.....those words are very jarring to someone that's endured abuse (whether physical/emotional/spiritual). It (IMO) was a very careless and insensitive choice of words (besides the belief itself---about "the man *always* having the authority to make the decision".....I disagree about that...but am not debating it---just saying).

But....this is a trivial bit of information about the phrase, "when push comes to shove" (and not meant to debate the issue):

I found the phrase used (1947) in the English translation of Haitian Jacques Romain's Masters of the Dew done by Langston Hughes and Mercer Cook:

Masters of the Dew - Jacques Roumain - Google Books

 

[LinkH]

mkgal1,

If the idiom happens to be used in the context of physical violence on occasion, that doesn't mean the concept of physical violence is inherent in the term.

Maybe it's not the best idiom to use in the context of marriage.

Sometimes people who go through traumatic experiences encounter certain 'triggers' that bring back emotions.

 

[mkgal1]

mkgal1,

If the idiom happens to be used in the context of physical violence on occasion, that doesn't mean the concept of physical violence is inherent in the term.

I understand that, Link. The phrase ought not be used at all (IMO)---especially when discussing a sensitive area (husband/wife relationships). If there is going to be left any room for doubt as to what is meant.....harsh phrases should not be used (IOW.....it would be difficult to temper that later by saying....."oh....I didn't mean 'always has final decision' if the husband makes reckless decisions that put the wife and children in harm's way").

Pastors have to consider there may be all sorts of things going on with the people in their "audience" and they should be careful about their words and not leaving room for misinterpretation.

Sometimes people who go through traumatic experiences encounter certain 'triggers' that bring back emotions.

Exactly. That's JUST the reason why "push" and "shove" should be left out of discussions about "Godly marriage" and what that looks like.

 

[Odetta]

I imagine that the person who said that had no idea that those words could be a trigger, and might have appreciated hearing the perspective of a person for whom it is a trigger.

 

[mkgal1]

I had doubts about a few other things that happened there, prior to that. I wasn't going to waste my time even trying to speak to him about that. Pastors should be educated about people's possible sensitivities (especially when speaking to thousands of people at one time).