Focus on positive rules and values

[Rao]

It occurs to me that the practical life of Christianity (that is, besides the theological beliefs) is often presented to non-believers, agnostics and skeptics as based around mostly "negative rules". By this expression I mean rules formulated as "dont's". Perhaps this view is not useful to help non-Christians get closer to the religion, as it tends to promote an image of repression and constriction, and an idea of God that many people starting from outside faith don't even see as particularly "good".

Wouldn't it be better, for the purpose of inviting non-Christians to see our point of view and become open-minded for conversion, to focus on positive rules and values instead?

To make some concrete example...

When talking about what being a Christian means (besides the core beliefs), what are the most commonly mentioned summaries to "practical rules of life", that are offered to non-Christians? Not considering here the Bible as a whole, which is quite too large to be offered as a concise starting point, I think that the Ten Commandments is probably the most common, together with the Seven Deadly Sins.

Eight of the Ten Commandments are "dont's", the only two "do's" being the 3rd and 4th, and the Seven Deadly Sins are obviously all "dont's".

If not repressive, at least this approach or guide to everyday life focuses mostly on inactivity, i.e. not doing things.

Why not instead focusing on pro-activity values like the Three Theological Virtues and the Four Cardinal Virtues, as practical guides to an everyday Christian life? And of course, Jesus new Commandment.

Note that these "positive" values do not eliminate the previous "dont's", but just imply them as necessary consequences: if you cultivate the virtue of Charity, you necessarily eschew Greed, Temperance eschews Lust and Gluttony, Hope eschews Sloth, and so on... And of course, as Jesus taught, basically everything hangs down from his new Commandment of love for God and people.

The difference is that "positive rules" turn the spotlight on freedom and liberty rather than obligations and prohibitions.

What do you think?

 

[drich0150]

What do you think?

I think if you try and build a relationship on Thou shalt's or thou shalt not's or strictly on fear of God then you miss the point of the relationship to begin with. If "we" focus on the Greatest command (As outlined by Jesus) and Teach each other to Love the Lord our God with all of our being, then our behavior will automatically fall in line with how we are supposed to act. Lest you think the Holy Spirit is with out power and merit.

I truly believe that it is impossible for one to live by the law as a way to obtain righteousness. The Law simply exists to show us that righteousness through the Law impossible. Or so says Paul. However the Law can be used to show those who seek to Love God with all of their being, a way to outwardly express their inner love. In short it's not so much what you do that is important it is why/the condition of your heart while you are doing it that is. (According to Jesus)

 

[razeontherock]

I think Christianity is all about "[Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:" Colossians 1:26-28

Rules? "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." James 1:25

2 Cor 3:17 "where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty."

Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

That's what I think on the subject!

 

[Sketcher]

A lot of the "don'ts" keep people out of trouble as well, and besides, people deserve to know what they're getting into. You don't hide an aspect of the faith from them.

 

[silence_dogood]

It occurs to me that the practical life of Christianity (that is, besides the theological beliefs) is often presented to non-believers, agnostics and skeptics as based around mostly "negative rules". By this expression I mean rules formulated as "dont's". Perhaps this view is not useful to help non-Christians get closer to the religion, as it tends to promote an image of repression and constriction, and an idea of God that many people starting from outside faith don't even see as particularly "good".

Wouldn't it be better, for the purpose of inviting non-Christians to see our point of view and become open-minded for conversion, to focus on positive rules and values instead?

To make some concrete example...

When talking about what being a Christian means (besides the core beliefs), what are the most commonly mentioned summaries to "practical rules of life", that are offered to non-Christians? Not considering here the Bible as a whole, which is quite too large to be offered as a concise starting point, I think that the Ten Commandments is probably the most common, together with the Seven Deadly Sins.

Eight of the Ten Commandments are "dont's", the only two "do's" being the 3rd and 4th, and the Seven Deadly Sins are obviously all "dont's".

If not repressive, at least this approach or guide to everyday life focuses mostly on inactivity, i.e. not doing things.

Why not instead focusing on pro-activity values like the Three Theological Virtues and the Four Cardinal Virtues, as practical guides to an everyday Christian life? And of course, Jesus new Commandment.

Note that these "positive" values do not eliminate the previous "dont's", but just imply them as necessary consequences: if you cultivate the virtue of Charity, you necessarily eschew Greed, Temperance eschews Lust and Gluttony, Hope eschews Sloth, and so on... And of course, as Jesus taught, basically everything hangs down from his new Commandment of love for God and people.

The difference is that "positive rules" turn the spotlight on freedom and liberty rather than obligations and prohibitions.

What do you think?

So then, your plan is to present the lost with a curriculum of moralism and works-righteousness?

What's wrong with giving them the Gospel?

 

[ebia]

What do you think?

Firstly that this is in the wrong forum. Exploring Christianity is for non-Christians to ask questions.

It occurs to me that the practical life of Christianity (that is, besides the theological beliefs) is often presented to non-believers, agnostics and skeptics as based around mostly "negative rules". By this expression I mean rules formulated as "dont's". Perhaps this view is not useful to help non-Christians get closer to the religion, as it tends to promote an image of repression and constriction, and an idea of God that many people starting from outside faith don't even see as particularly "good".

Wouldn't it be better, for the purpose of inviting non-Christians to see our point of view and become open-minded for conversion, to focus on positive rules and values instead?

To make some concrete example...

When talking about what being a Christian means (besides the core beliefs), what are the most commonly mentioned summaries to "practical rules of life", that are offered to non-Christians? Not considering here the Bible as a whole, which is quite too large to be offered as a concise starting point, I think that the Ten Commandments is probably the most common, together with the Seven Deadly Sins.

Eight of the Ten Commandments are "dont's", the only two "do's" being the 3rd and 4th, and the Seven Deadly Sins are obviously all "dont's".

If not repressive, at least this approach or guide to everyday life focuses mostly on inactivity, i.e. not doing things.

Why not instead focusing on pro-activity values like the Three Theological Virtues and the Four Cardinal Virtues, as practical guides to an everyday Christian life? And of course, Jesus new Commandment.

Note that these "positive" values do not eliminate the previous "dont's", but just imply them as necessary consequences: if you cultivate the virtue of Charity, you necessarily eschew Greed, Temperance eschews Lust and Gluttony, Hope eschews Sloth, and so on... And of course, as Jesus taught, basically everything hangs down from his new Commandment of love for God and people.

The difference is that "positive rules" turn the spotlight on freedom and liberty rather than obligations and prohibitions.

What do you think?

Absolutely we need to get back to virtues. Rules are necessary in the way that crash barriers are necessary on the freeway - there to limit the damage when things go wrong, but definitely not the thing one should be focusing on or a substitute for learning to drive properly.

 

[Joveia]

I've found two thoughts especially helpful on this subject. One is that what God wants us to do is based on reasons, and those reasons are about treating people the way we'd like to be ideally treated (Matt 7:12). So it isn't like God wants us to do random stuff, but God wants us to treat people the way we would like others to ideally treat us. So when you think about it in that way it makes it easier to think of God's will as not burdensome, because you can identify actual, strong moral reasons for it.

A second point is that in terms of salvation just to keep reminding ourselves that 1) We're forgiven and 2) We're saved by God's grace. This takes away the 'judgmental-ness' associated with Christians because we're not looking at other people from a position of 'moral strength', but rather from a position of being forgiven and saved by grace, which takes away piousness.

 

[talitha]

Romans 14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

 

[Rao]

Firstly that this is in the wrong forum. Exploring Christianity is for non-Christians to ask questions.

Yes I had a problem choosing the right place... It's definitely a general discussion not tied to one specific congregation and it's not theology. The topic is on how to talk about our religion to the undecided. I thought Exploring Christianity was the least off-topic, but if you have a better idea, can we ask the moderators to move the thread?

I'm not sure I delivered the topic correctly, since I don't understand a few of the responses.

 

[Rao]

So then, your plan is to present the lost with a curriculum of moralism and works-righteousness?

What's wrong with giving them the Gospel?

I'm just wondering if talking more about the "positive rules" can make the non-believers and the undecided more interested and willing to explore Christianity, including reading the Gospel. I don't think that just telling them "read the Gospel" works well, that's all.

 

[ebia]

Yes I had a problem choosing the right place... It's definitely a general discussion not tied to one specific congregation and it's not theology. The topic is on how to talk about our religion to the undecided. I thought Exploring Christianity was the least off-topic, but if you have a better idea, can we ask the moderators to move the thread?

Philosphy and ethics - that could do with some better threads.

 

[silence_dogood]

It occurs to me that the practical life of Christianity (that is, besides the theological beliefs) is often presented to non-believers, agnostics and skeptics as based around mostly "negative rules". By this expression I mean rules formulated as "dont's". Perhaps this view is not useful to help non-Christians get closer to the religion, as it tends to promote an image of repression and constriction, and an idea of God that many people starting from outside faith don't even see as particularly "good".

Wouldn't it be better, for the purpose of inviting non-Christians to see our point of view and become open-minded for conversion, to focus on positive rules and values instead?

To make some concrete example...

When talking about what being a Christian means (besides the core beliefs), what are the most commonly mentioned summaries to "practical rules of life", that are offered to non-Christians? Not considering here the Bible as a whole, which is quite too large to be offered as a concise starting point, I think that the Ten Commandments is probably the most common, together with the Seven Deadly Sins.

Eight of the Ten Commandments are "dont's", the only two "do's" being the 3rd and 4th, and the Seven Deadly Sins are obviously all "dont's".

If not repressive, at least this approach or guide to everyday life focuses mostly on inactivity, i.e. not doing things.

Why not instead focusing on pro-activity values like the Three Theological Virtues and the Four Cardinal Virtues, as practical guides to an everyday Christian life? And of course, Jesus new Commandment.

Note that these "positive" values do not eliminate the previous "dont's", but just imply them as necessary consequences: if you cultivate the virtue of Charity, you necessarily eschew Greed, Temperance eschews Lust and Gluttony, Hope eschews Sloth, and so on... And of course, as Jesus taught, basically everything hangs down from his new Commandment of love for God and people.

The difference is that "positive rules" turn the spotlight on freedom and liberty rather than obligations and prohibitions.

What do you think?

Except that rules don’t save. Rules don’t convict.

What’s wrong with following the Biblical model? What’s wrong with doing what Jesus did? What’s wrong with doing what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years.

I’ll tell you what: at our church, I lead our church’s evangelism team and one of the ways we train members is to do lots and lots of role playing.

Why don’t you pretend that I’m an unsaved person and tell me about some of these “positive rules”?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

A lot of the "don'ts" keep people out of trouble as well, and besides, people deserve to know what they're getting into. You don't hide an aspect of the faith from them.

A lot of the don'ts are older than your faith's texts, honestly, or pretty close, and exist outside of Western culture. Not to mention I imagine a child raised without any exposure to religion could still derive some basic ethics from interactions with people, even if it admittedly may very well be a trial and error kind of habituation. But it never occurred to me to really kill someone or find any significant joy in lying to someone or stealing. Just a waste of time and energy as well as just sabotaging what are already complicated relationships with people.

On the OP, I'd say this would be helpful, since it would at least start on a positive note and potentially find common ground, even if the methods of reaching those conclusions are different.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

So then, your plan is to present the lost with a curriculum of moralism and works-righteousness?

What's wrong with giving them the Gospel?

Because honestly, one could say it's better to start with something than nothing at all.

And the Gospel's hardly perfect either. One could interpret it as a number of different methods, from pacifism to martialism, from anarchism to communism and everything in between, not to mention the diversity of opinions about whether Jesus was God incarnate, adopted son or something else in between those two options.

I mean, it's fun to read as literature and maybe to find some good values, but strictly ethically speaking, it's few and far between. Sermon on the Mount and a few other parables interspersed.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Except that rules don’t save. Rules don’t convict.

What’s wrong with following the Biblical model? What’s wrong with doing what Jesus did? What’s wrong with doing what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years.

I’ll tell you what: at our church, I lead our church’s evangelism team and one of the ways we train members is to do lots and lots of role playing.

Why don’t you pretend that I’m an unsaved person and tell me about some of these “positive rules”?

The Biblical model has maintained consistency, but like any ideology/worldview/school of thought, it has branched out and evolved and by association, you differ from many other Christians on both doctrine and method I would wager.

I could tell you about some of these rules and I'm not even a Christian.

Don't murder (albeit the abortion part is always supposedly implied, not sure on that one)

Don't steal

Don't lie

Don't have sex with someone who's married if you're not married to them, or at least don't have sex unless you're committed to being safe about it and committed to each other in fidelity (Albeit this has little to say about pre marital sex, but I'm not touching that hornet's nest)

Love other people, but also be strict with them when necessary (This is practically a faith neutral position, it just works in general with relationships)

Forgiveness is a better way to solve problems than hanging onto past grudges: or alternate formulation, forgiveness starts inside; forgive yourself for wrong behaviors you practiced in the past to yourself and others, then you can begin to truly forgive those who wrong you and themselves from outside.

And one last one off the top of my head, violence should be a last resort and should be properly utilized, not rashly thrown around as a way to exert force on others. Or a somewhat relevant and related idea: discretion is the better part of valor

 

[silence_dogood]

Because honestly, one could say it's better to start with something than nothing at all.

And the Gospel is "nothing"? Don't you think that's awfully insulting (not to mention blasphemous), given that you're on a Christian message board?

And the Gospel's hardly perfect either. One could interpret it as a number of different methods, from pacifism to martialism, from anarchism to communism and everything in between, not to mention the diversity of opinions about whether Jesus was God incarnate, adopted son or something else in between those two options.

Only if they didn't have any idea what the Gospel is. You have to remember, you're in a room full of Christians, so it's assumed that we're going to have an understanding of what the Bible teaches the Gospel is, and not what you claim that it might be.

I mean, it's fun to read as literature and maybe to find some good values, but strictly ethically speaking, it's few and far between. Sermon on the Mount and a few other parables interspersed.

Why are you in this forum? I don't think you're allowed to argue here and I certainly don't think you're allowed to come here to mock our faith and blaspheme our God.

 

[solarwave]

I agree with the first post.

I find I am focusing less and less on the law anyway and more and more on loving God and loving people and my moral rules come from what is loving more than strict (and maybe with limited scope) laws.

Since the whole of the law is summed up in love God and love others then what need is there for Christian rules other than for guidence for those who want guidence.

Isn't the gospel ment to be good news rather than lumping on a load of laws.

 

[silence_dogood]

I agree with the first post.

I find I am focusing less and less on the law anyway and more and more on loving God and loving people and my moral rules come from what is loving more than strict (and maybe with limited scope) laws.

How do you present the Gospel without the law?

Since the whole of the law is summed up in love God and love others then what need is there for Christian rules other than for guidence for those who want guidence.

How does a person understand his sinfulness and his standing as an enemy before God if he doesn't first understand that he's broken God's laws?

Isn't the gospel ment to be good news rather than lumping on a load of laws.

In the Bible, the Gospel is always presented in two parts: the law, which explains the need for Christ's atonement on our behalf, and grace, which explains the application of Christ's atonement.

Out of curiousity, have you ever read what Paul says about the law in the book of Romans?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

And the Gospel is "nothing"? Don't you think that's awfully insulting (not to mention blasphemous), given that you're on a Christian message board?

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said the Gospel was nothing. I was suggesting that in lieu of the Gospel, perhaps just presenting Christian principles without the Gospel is better than just not presenting anything at all. The Gospel is not suggested to be nothing, you're reading something into what I said that wasn't there.

Only if they didn't have any idea what the Gospel is. You have to remember, you're in a room full of Christians, so it's assumed that we're going to have an understanding of what the Bible teaches the Gospel is, and not what you claim that it might be.

One can point out Christians don't agree on every facet of the Gospel even if they agree on certain base principles.

Why are you in this forum? I don't think you're allowed to argue here and I certainly don't think you're allowed to come here to mock our faith and blaspheme our God.

Pointing out things that Christians many times seem to willfully ignore is not mocking anything if it's something that honestly can edify your faith with a dose of reality.

 

[silence_dogood]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said the Gospel was nothing. I was suggesting that in lieu of the Gospel, perhaps just presenting Christian principles without the Gospel is better than just not presenting anything at all. The Gospel is not suggested to be nothing, you're reading something into what I said that wasn't there.




One can point out Christians don't agree on every facet of the Gospel even if they agree on certain base principles.


Pointing out things that Christians many times seem to willfully ignore is not mocking anything if it's something that honestly can edify your faith with a dose of reality.

I'm trying to help you out, here. They're going to give you an infraction if you don't stop debating.

This forum is for non-Christians to ask questions of Christians, not for you to come and argue with us. They really don't like it when non-Christians do that in this forum.

Don't say I didn't try to give you a head's up.