Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Read Christian Advice. You'll see evidence of the result of legalism all over. I noted above that this isn't a universal failing. Conservative Lutheranism has generally avoided it, and so has the Keller-style Presbyterianism that thatbrian likes. But you only need to read CF to see just how much damage legalism has done.That proposal would require a lot more evidence than you've provided here (which is none).
I took you to be speaking, in that post of yours, about Conservative Christians and Conservative Christianity itself...not what a few posters on these forums might have said (which often is so 'off the wall' that they can't be considered typical of anything)Read Christian Advice. You'll see evidence of the result of legalism all over..
Right. And not them only. So, it's all the Catholic churches and some of the conservative Protestant ones. That's what I was saying.This obviously doesn't apply to the Catholic tradition, and possibly not to the Anglican. Conservative there relates to holding to Tradition. That has some differences and some similarities to Protestant conservatism.
Remember I said it wasn't universal. Just that when conservative Christianity goes back, it tends to fall into legalism. Just as when liberal Christianity goes bad it tends to fall into skepticism.Right. And not them only. So, it's all the Catholic churches and some of the conservative Protestant ones. That's what I was saying.
The third characteristic problem is an attempt to make us believe and live like 1st Cent people. Of course that’s ridiculous, so this is never done consistently. But it shows up now and then.
One of the less controversial (though still controversial enough) examples is the creation account. We know a lot more about astronomy and biology than the Biblical authors did. It’s obvious to us that these are legends. Indeed I maintain that it’s not even a short-coming. They used ideas about origins from the culture around them, but rewrote them to be consistent with their understanding of how God works.
In the area of ethics, one of the examples I can talk about here is the role of women. Sorry, but the 1st Cent had very different ideas. Our current ideas developed from a concept of equality that I would claim ultimately goes back to Christian teaching, though the path between there and here is complex. But I don’t see that Jesus or Paul ever intended to mandate that 1st Cent attitudes towards gender and sex should be maintained forever.
This goes back to what you think Scripture is. I think it’s a record of people’s experience with God. God certainly revealed truths, but the people understood and applied them within a particular historical context. The responsibility of the Church (which goes with the power of the keys) is to reinterpret the implications of this for our situation. Unfortunately this is a responsibility that most churches have not been willing to take. Instead they’ve tried to use it to hold back change. That can’t work, and it hasn’t, but it results in unnecessary problems, both intellectual and pastoral.
Is this a criticism of a conservative attitude or is it a criticism of traditional beliefs? I think they are different. Maybe I'm reflecting my personal bias of a literal belief in Genesis coupled with a fairly non-legalistic attitude towards observance and morality. Put another way, is the problem the fact that a literal understanding of genesis is understood, or is it that this understanding is being used as a sticking point to those who think otherwise?
Read Christian Advice. You'll see evidence of the result of legalism all over. I noted above that this isn't a universal failing. Conservative Lutheranism has generally avoided it, and so has the Keller-style Presbyterianism that thatbrian likes. But you only need to read CF to see just how much damage legalism has done.
Not personally.I've come across much legalism in a variety of churches, but up until 15 years ago, I only saw legalism of the Right, but failed to see the legalism of the Left. Having understood the gospel much, much more clearly, through may former pastor (Keller) I now understand the gospel as the only moderate position, with legalism on both sides.
Do you understand, or have you seen, the legalism of the Left?
Not personally.
Not personally.
I’d say there are two kinds of legalism. One, which is what Paul was objecting to, uses obedience to the Jewish law, or something equivalent, for justification. That is, it would say that our acceptance by God as one of his people depends upon that.
The other sense is making Christian ethics too reliant on rules, particularly when they are applied inflexibly.
But most of us have doctrinal and ethical standards, and most of us believe that God cares whether we follow them. Is this adding to the finished work of Christ? It may be if we think people who disagree with our standards aren’t God’s people. That does sometimes happen. I’ve been called apostate at times because of ethical and theological differences. But most Christians, when they’re being careful with their language, are thinking more along the lines that if you don’t accept TULIP, or gay rights, or whatever, you aren’t really showing the life that Christ wants, not that God has rejected you.
Sure. But in normal Protestant mode I see most of this as after one is a Christian. That is, given that one is a Christian there are things one has to do. They’re mostly not requirements to be accepted by God in the first place.The second paragraph about ethical and doctrinal rules and standards raises a few questions:
Are there expressible ethical and theological (creedal) standards a Christian must abide by?
To some extent. God is one. Jesus is the Son of God. That’s not going to change between cultures or over time. Neither is love your neighbor. That Christ is one person with two natures is an attempt to explain the Incarnation in a terminology from a particular culture. In other cultures we can use other explanations.Are these standards universal
Both. There are certainly implications on both individual behavior and the right way to structure society and government.Are these standards societal or individual; are these incumbent upon the Christian society, or on the Christian, or both
In some cases yes. We have laws such as prohibitions of murder. But then we have courts that work out traditional interpretations for exceptional situations such as self-defense. But if you look at Matthew 5, Jesus emphasized intent. There’s a limit to what you can accomplish with law and standards.Can these standards be expressed as rules and laws?
Are these rules and laws universal?
I think there may be more than two categories. I tried to outline them above.I make a distinction above between standards and laws. The former refers to their existence and necessity, while the latter refers to their application and articulation.
Personally, it's the marriage of politics to religion. I lean more toward the conservative side theologically, but more toward the liberal side politically. I've found it challenging at times to find a church (I'm in the Army; I move often) which doesn't compromise evangelical theology but also doesn't preach conservative politics (especially on political issues far removed from religion) or preach nastiness at non-conservative politicians from the pulpit.
Looking at that with the most generous eyes you can muster, why do you think it is that conservatives would not take a, "live and let live" approach to Christian doctrine/practice? Would you say that their motivation was in fact the desire to control others?
For the record, I'm not speaking about classical liberalism. TYI, I would call myself a classical liberal. We aren't referring to politics when we say conservative or liberal. We are referring to the spectrum of Christianity, Left to Right.
Indeed, in my opinion it's not so much the adherence to specific doctrines which are problematic with conservatism, it's specifically the attitude to make any variation of doctrine stick out as a sore thumb. It's the insistence on orthopraxy in all matters and principles and the mere shudder at the thought of anything else as heterodoxy, which in my opinion is not a dirty word. To be heterodox is to be human, though it is another matter to explicitly adhere to heterodox doctrine.
Legalism, which is defined as an attempt to add anything to the finished work of Christ - to trust in anything other than Christ and His finished work for one’s standing before God. This is sometimes obvious for us to see, but often it is hidden, even from our own eyes, and it is a problem that the Left, which sees itself as far removed from legalism, is just as neck-deep in as the fundies they feel contempt toward.
Much legalism is covert. That's my assertion. On a quiz, most Protestants would know how to answer questions about one's standing before God in a way that affirms Christ's finished work, not their good deeds, but practically, they can live in quite a different way. Every Christian, to some degree, is resting the basis for his righteousness on his own deeds. Again, this is happening on a subconscious level, unless and until, by the grace of God He shakes us enough to expose the corrupt foundations that we have built upon.
TBC with some examples.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?