|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Legalism: can anyone be free from it?
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
In an effort to mine the talent and knowledge present on these boards I submit for discussion:
that legalism (i.e., thinking that what we do or not do allows us to curry favor with God) is one of the worst barriers to God's love that ever existed.
And that the mistake of legalism is the primary one the Jews made, and the primary one Christians make today. Not to mention the primary one I make.
How do we get past it?
[ 01. February 2004, 17:25: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I don't think we can get past it to be honest. The cult of WWJD, endless focusing on the Ten Commandments and the horrid phrase "Living A Christian Life*" seem to be far more common than a simple "God loves you whoever you are and whatever you do".
* - I was once having a chat with one of the younger (16) members of my cricket club. I mentioned I was Christian, and he said "but you drink and smoke! Christians don't do that!" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
The problem with legalism is that it carries a psychological payoff. If we owe God X, Y, and Z, then we are free to do or not do the other things we like.
God has made it clear he wants our hearts and minds, but it's much easier to follow a set of rules and keep our hearts and minds as our own.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronist
Shipmate
# 5343
|
Posted
I'm with you Moo. Having a clear set of rules gives people a sense of security. The stuff like loving your neighbour and loving your enemies doesn't do this because we are pretty sure we don't.
Also it pretty much kills people to deny themselves some small bit of selfishness and see others not denying themselves similarily. We can't have freedom unless we grant the same to others.
Posts: 827 | From: Vancouver Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
We need some clarification of terms here ....
"Legalism" as in the sense of "ooposed to grace" would take any rule ... good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate ... and exalt that as saving in the place of Christ, his death and resurrection.
In that sense, Orthodoxy is implacably opposed to "legalism."
"Legalism" in the sense of faithfulness to God's Law as an expression of our love for him and a desire to pattern our lives after Christ and his teaching ... this I take to be wholely good and part of a Christian life being perfected by grace.
Now which do we mean?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I'm not sure I agree with 'God's law' as a concept Gregory, I want to do good because God has shown me how to love, I don't want to obey anything written down by men and called 'God's law' unless I can see that it is a good and loving thing to do.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
I second Fr. Gregory's question, because I have often seen "legalism" derided where what is favored instead is antinomianism.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Me too, Kyralessa.
One of the things the Scriptures are clear about is that what we do matters.
Ruudy
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
"When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby."
Written down by men or by God?
Answer: ?.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Here's a related question: How many here think they are responsible to keep the Mosaic Law (the 10 commandments, the one discussed in Romans, whatever)?
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crash Test Christian
Shipmate
# 5313
|
Posted
We can't earn salvation, right? Not even if we followed every last directive given in the Old Testament.
I agree that we should be obedient if we love God. But it seems there are extra-biblical taboos, ex. smoking, rock and roll, and the use of certain words, etc.
As for whether we should follow the 10 commandments:
quote:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness :
Considering the writers of the NT only had the OT for scripture.
[ 30. December 2003, 05:22: Message edited by: Crash Test Christian ]
--------------------
Holding the button since Febuary 25, 2004.
Posts: 89 | From: the Road | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
Good grief, Fr. Gregory you've made me agree with Bonzo, and there certainly must be a heavenly injunction against that. Could you pick a worse candidate for "God's law" than "Thou shalt not kill?" That particular prescription is completely unambiguous as stated, and shot full of exceptions and amendments in practice. "Thou shalt not kill (other humans) (as an individual [though larger sovereign collectives may reserve the right to do so in select and specific cases]) (unless you are a soldier fighting in a "just" [to be defined later] war and in proper obedience to the chain of command) etc." is only approximately the level of interpretation necessary for that commandment to be historically understood as "God's Law".
Legalism is a socially useful construct. Legalism does not ever suffice individually or collectively to lead people towards God. It merely serves to provide structure. Legalism is the skeletal structure of morality. The meat of morality is compassion. The heart of morality is the living love, Christ. The soul of morality is ... Well, I could play this game forever. The point is that rules and the intellectual game of refining them to accord to the circumstance of existence is just the start. It's what we embody and shape through the actions of our daily lives which matters. Christ pointed that fact out through both exposition and parable.
Thus, in a certain sense I agree Fr. Gregory that it is through the discipline of following God's law that we reach toward God. I'm just skeptical that the human organization called Christianity (*) inclusive of the Bible has gotten that Law entirely correct. I am skeptical that any human organization can. The best that we can hope for is an understanding of God's law that converges over time to a closer and closer approximation. Thus, I respect the discipline of others practicing a diversity of ways, and always leave room in my understanding for new ways of understanding and embodying morality.
(*)Yes, I understand the Orthodox position that the Church is more than the human institution thereof but, frankly, I think that position is hubris, dangerous and bunk. Even if the Church is the Christ as a living expression of God's will, it damn well better still organize itself as if it can and will do harm if its power is unwatched and unchecked.
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Legalism is much derided when it comes to civil law. When a lawyer gets an accused off on atechnicality, when it is clear that the spirit, but not letter, of the law has been breached, then that lawyer is not held in high regard (except professionally).
The world sees Christians as people who have to obey a set of rules. "You must not smoke", "You must not do anything you may remotely enjoy on a Sunday", etc. Someone who sees Christianity as being legalistic is not going to be sympathetic to the Church. On the other hand, Christians seen helping out in humanitarian projects, where evangelism is not a hidden agenda, are held in high regard.
Jesus' words in John 14:15 "If you love me you will keep my commandments." is not a call to legalism, but rather one of where our motives lie.
We are not to obey because it's the law, rather we are to love. If we love Jesus we will not willfully disobey his commands.
So my role is to return the love of God to the God who loves me. The law is useful in that it indicates if my following of God is on track or not. The end result of loving God is that His law is obeyed, but this is not the same as legalistically following the rules of God (as in the scriptures) or men (such as doing liturgy correctly).
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Oh dear - the problem of mistranslation...
It is my understanding that the phrase 'Thou shalt not kill' should be translated 'Thou shalt not murder' - which brings in a definition of murder to correct the common misinterpretations.
If we are genuinely close to God, then 'his law shall be written on our hearts' as Jeremiah's prophecy promises (31 v 31). In reality we need to have clear guidelines to prevent us wandering off because we so often get it wrong. Jesus' teaching on Corban is an example of this; the Jews had applied one principle to the exclusion of another.
And the new Testament is full of 'commandments' once you start looking (e.g. Romans 12 and 13), despite the phrase about the law being summed up in 'Love your neighbour as yourself'. We need the 'reality checks' of precise commandments to reduce our tendency to deceive ourselves that we are doing all right.
The core problem lies in the absence of effective relationships that allow people to be truly honest about what is going on in their lives. Instead we resort to simplistic legalism and give ourselves permission to criticise others publicly. In response the shutters go up.... But there does seem to be problem with libertine behaviour in this generation of Christians; promiscuous drunkness is not consistent with being a Christian, however much it is attractive. At some point such a person is deceiving themselves that they are all right with God.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
I merely responded to one over-stretched assumption (laws are man made) with another one (laws are God made) and then combined them (yes) in order to foreclose on any either-or easy solutions. Few seem to have understood what I was doing. I am not an absolutist .. but I am not an antinomian either. Yes, the Bible and the Church do get things wrong. More often than not though, they do get things right and I do not want to be an arbiter of what is right and what is wrong, what is godly and what is not. That ways lies madness or confusion.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
I do not want to be an arbiter of what is right and what is wrong, what is godly and what is not. That ways lies madness or confusion.
Then I'll take madness and confusion.
I've seen too many laws/teachings that the church has declared as right, which hurt people. I know of churches who will not allow a woman to lead a service, ones where you will be banned from leading a sunday school class if you happen to live with your partner, churches who won't allow a celibate Gay to be a bishop, churches where drinking is banned, churches who have excommunicated homosexuals etc. etc.
I agree that the majority of what the Church/Bible says is right, but I have the responsibility for my own actions, and since churches or the Bible does get things wrong, I have to examine everything and hold it up against the yardstick of the two greatest commandments, against what I can see to be loving.
Now I'm not suggesting that I should be the arbiter of other people's actions, but I must take responsibility for my own. Blind obedience to something which might be wrong is not an option.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
Who said anything about blind obedience? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) Why do you substantiate your own position by misrepresenting / exagerrating mine? I know you don't do it on purpose but you frequently seem to be responding to an agenda not represented by me and my position at all. I know what you're gainsaying but it's not what I am saying at all.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Gregory,
I know that you are not a blind obedience type, but I don't read it in what you have posted on this thread.
I understand you to be saying that you do not want to be an arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. I'm pointing out that we all should be, at least for our own personal actions and stances to the best of our abilities.
If I'm misreading you, then perhaps you could clarify. For example, the Orthodox church does not allow the ordination of women. Do you work towards what you see as right within the church or do you uphold what the church's rules dictate without question? How do you deal with it?
For myself I try to ask whether a particular action or stance is right by questioning its effect on others, whether it is loving or not. I suspect you do the same.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Bonzo
The ordination of women is a good example for purposes of clarification.
(1) Every Orthodox BISHOP as a matter of PRACTICE upholds the Church's rules on who may or may not be ordained according to the canons. If he were not to do so, he would be deposed.
(2) Every Orthodox CHRISTIAN (bishop or not) has a calling to explore WITH THE CHURCH AND WITHIN THE CHURCH any issue which may be raised or contested at any time. In doing so such a person will be expected to bring her / her conscience, an informed understanding of the Scriptures, Tradition and contemporary insights to bear on the issue. If a person or persons felt strongly enough that the Spirit was leading the Church into a fresh examination of such issues then it would be that person's duty to work toward that end. This does not presuppose the outcome of such conciliar processes ... one way or the other.
(3) The actual decision making process is laid down in Orthodoxy. It does NOT consist of individuals ... no matter how loving or enlightened ... going off and doing their own thing and sod the consequences, (or groups, or provinces / jurisdictions etc). Our first duty is to God and one another IN THAT CONTEXT.
[ 30. December 2003, 11:26: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
We differ in approach, but perhaps not so much in practice. From my point of view, change for the better in the church has sometimes come about through individuals 'going off and doing their own thing'. Usually this comes after years of effort to talk the church round.
Using the yardstick of Love it is a balancing act between the hurt caused to those discriminated against and the hurt caused to the church as a body of people. In the final analysis an individuals response should take all such hurt into account and attempt to steer a course for good within this framework.
Of course we should be aware of our limitations and be prepared to accept a level of uncertainty in our analysis of what is right. But I beleive there can be times (albeit rarely and never without much prayer and agonising) when we should act unilaterally.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
(*)Yes, I understand the Orthodox position that the Church is more than the human institution thereof but, frankly, I think that position is hubris, dangerous and bunk. Even if the Church is the Christ as a living expression of God's will, it damn well better still organize itself as if it can and will do harm if its power is unwatched and unchecked.
The Orthodox position is also the Catholic position. It may seem to some to be hubris, dangerous and bunk but it is the sincere belief of three-quarters of the Christian world today and is consonant with the promises made by our Lord to His Apostles. It is the view which could be characterised as "Church = human institution which often as not gets in the way of our relationship with God" which is really nonsense on stilts, un-scriptural and dangerous.
Fr Gregory and I may disagree about exactly where and how the authority of the Church is best expressed but I think (if I presume, Father, please forgive me) that we would both agree that the Church does enjoy Christ's teaching authority. The danger of separating oneself from the Church, from the successors of the Apostles, is that teaching authority, to be tested against Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, is replaced by nothing more than opinion.
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Test Christian:
But it seems there are extra-biblical taboos, ex. smoking, rock and roll, and the use of certain words, etc.
The taboo against the use of certain words is very ironic, given the fact that the Bible is full of these words. People weren't nearly as mealy-mouthed back then as they are now.
There is a serious confusion in some churches between conventional behavior and godly behavior.
Crash Test Christian, welcome to the ship. I hope you enjoy the voyage.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Trisagion
quote:
Fr Gregory and I may disagree about exactly where and how the authority of the Church is best expressed but I think (if I presume, Father, please forgive me) that we would both agree that the Church does enjoy Christ's teaching authority. The danger of separating oneself from the Church, from the successors of the Apostles, is that teaching authority, to be tested against Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, is replaced by nothing more than opinion.
We are in total agreement Trisagion. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Authority has been committed by Christ to His Church ... to bind and loose ... to speak in the name of Christ. That is the most fundamental difference between ourselves and the Protestant world. It crops up here over and over again.
With the failure of "sola Scriptura" in this tradition I doubt whether there is anything else than personal opinion / conviction left. As soon as scriptural confessionalism dissolves the denominational fractures get even worse.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
the Church does enjoy Christ's teaching authority.
Yes, but which church?? That authority can be misused, and abused, so that church=leadership=control.
You can have a situation where a woman "feels led" by God to teach within the church structure. But if that particular denomination denies that women should have any teaching role at all, then is the woman wrong, or the church? The same woman could have a teaching position if she went to another church.
But chopping and changing churches so that you can do what you feel is "right" does not seem to be a good idea!
When does authority become control? And when does control become spiritual abuse?
Nic
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
quote:
the Church does enjoy Christ's teaching authority.
Yes, but which church?? That authority can be misused, and abused, so that church=leadership=control.
That's quite a jump. By the same logic you could say that some parents are abusive, so parenthood=leadership=control.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Bonzo writes:
quote:
From my point of view, change for the better in the church has sometimes come about through individuals 'going off and doing their own thing'.
Then what of unity? - emphasized over and over again in the NT.
From my point of view, much insanity has come about through individuals 'going off and doing their own thing'. Gnosticism, antinomianism, and Arianism are all sorts of early heresies that have been repackaged and delivered afresh as groups disgard the authority of the Church and launch out on their own - often with the best of intentions.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Nicodemia, I think that Fr Gregory has identified very accurately what the fundamental difference is between the Catholic/Orthodox position and the Protestant one and your post provides a perfect example.
"Feeling led" or "called" or whatever is just that: a feeling. The only certainty we can have that we are "being" called or led is when Christ confirms that through the mechanism He has given to us for the continuation of His authority here on earth, i.e. the Church.
The "which Church?" question doesn't really apply for Catholics or Orthodox christians. The key here is whether the church stands in the Apostolic Succession and is preserved by Christ's own promised gift. Those churches which are Orthodox and those which are Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Bp of Rome) do stand in the Apostolic Succession, for sure. Other churches cannot have that assurance. That is not to say that they cannot be vehicles for grace and the sanctification of souls - they most certainly have been and continue to be so - but that is not the issue here.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
Bonzo writes:
quote:
From my point of view, change for the better in the church has sometimes come about through individuals 'going off and doing their own thing'.
Then what of unity? - emphasized over and over again in the NT.
From my point of view, much insanity has come about through individuals 'going off and doing their own thing'. Gnosticism, antinomianism, and Arianism are all sorts of early heresies that have been repackaged and delivered afresh as groups disgard the authority of the Church and launch out on their own - often with the best of intentions.
Such indeed is the problem; either 'the church', as an organised institution, has the right to condemn these things, or it does not. If it does not, then 'anything goes'. If it does, then it becomes liable to the allegation of 'control' and 'legalism'. The Catholic / Orthodox answer is to say that it does have this right, uncondtionally. The traditional protestant answer is to look to the bible and offer it the right to condemn what it finds condemned in the bible. The modern liberal protestant answer seems to be willing to ignore what is in the bible entirely; SOME of the quotes being thrown about in the Gene Robinson affair reject any appeal to the bible, though presumably they would draw the line somewhere - on what grounds I'm not quite sure.
So - would our opponents of 'legalism' like to say whether the church can ever exercise authority - or should it ignore the lifestyles of its members?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nicodemia, I think that Fr Gregory has identified very accurately what the fundamental difference is between the Catholic/Orthodox position and the Protestant one and your post provides a perfect example.
"Feeling led" or "called" or whatever is just that: a feeling. The only certainty we can have that we are "being" called or led is when Christ confirms that through the mechanism He has given to us for the continuation of His authority here on earth, i.e. the Church.
The "which Church?" question doesn't really apply for Catholics or Orthodox christians. The key here is whether the church stands in the Apostolic Succession and is preserved by Christ's own promised gift. Those churches which are Orthodox and those which are Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Bp of Rome) do stand in the Apostolic Succession, for sure. Other churches cannot have that assurance. That is not to say that they cannot be vehicles for grace and the sanctification of souls - they most certainly have been and continue to be so - but that is not the issue here.
So on that basis the inquisition, the crusades and the pogroms were part of the work of Christ?! Yes or no answers only....
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Church does enjoy Christ's teaching authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but which church?? That authority can be misused, and abused, so that church=leadership=control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's quite a jump. By the same logic you could say that some parents are abusive, so parenthood=leadership=control.
Mousethief, I said can lead to abuse, not that it does Happily, in most churches it doesn't, but in some churches it does, and leads to a lot of hurt and suffering.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
"Feeling led" or "called" or whatever is just that: a feeling. The only certainty we can have that we are "being" called or led is when Christ confirms that through the mechanism He has given to us for the continuation of His authority here on earth, i.e. the Church.
Presumably becoming a priest, whether RC or Orthodox, or any of us lesser Christians, starts with a "feeling" that God is calling you? Obviously, this is then to be confirmed by the leadership of the church, whether Apostolic or not. I thought that was so obvious I didn't bother to mention it!
My point was that a "feeling" which is not confirmed in one denomination can be confirmed in another because of their differing traditions. There are many women priests in and Anglican church who, I am told, felt for a long time that God was calling them to be priests/vicars/curates/whatever. But it was a very long time before men confirmed what they felt God was saying, and there are still those in the Anglican church who would not agree.
So, which church does enjoy Christ's teaching authority, Trisagion? Or are you in effect saying that only RC and Orthodox churches are approved of by God/real/sound (take your choice) and that Christians in churches other than RC and Orthodox are not real Christians? Or mistaken? Or just in the wrong place? Following the wrong doctrine?
Nic
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Moo wrote:
quote:
God has made it clear he wants our hearts and minds, but it's much easier to follow a set of rules and keep our hearts and minds as our own.
I think we think it is when in fact it's much easier to say screw the rules and trust God to work through us.
However, it is, at least for me, just about impossible to practice experientially.
And I really think it's the main thing that keeps people from accepting the Christian faith and we all perpetuate it because we just can't stand the thought of freedom.
Sigh.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Ronist wrote:
quote:
We can't have freedom unless we grant the same to others.
This might be the ultimate root cause of the problem: we might not be able to STAND the thought of other people not having to conform to what we think they should do.
God help us.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Nicomedia, I am precisely saying that only those churches which stand in the Apostolic Succession enjoy the guarantee of Christ in their teaching authority. In effect that means the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
As I said in the previous post, that does not mean that other denominations have no value. They have been and continue to be channels of grace but they do not enjoy the guarantee of Christ regarding their teaching authority.
Yes, I do believe that they are mistaken and in error and in the wrong place and following the wrong doctrine. I also believe that they are Christians and that many of them put me to shame in the fidelity with which they conform themselves to Christ.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Kyralessa wrote:
quote:
I second Fr. Gregory's question, because I have often seen "legalism" derided where what is favored instead is antinomianism.
The distinction I make is that while there are undoubtedly things God requires of us, no other human is qualified to tell me or you what those things are for me or you.
I should do what He wants, not what someone else tells me He wants. It's me and my conscience before God with no NEED of input from others.
It may HELP to get such advice (said advice should always be recognized as such with disclaimers) but ultimately it's my decision and responsibility.
It's probably worth noting I'm a thin-skinned libertarian who has had it up to HERE with well intentioned do-gooders who have, apparently, no qualms whatsoever about dictating what others should do in order to be an "acceptable" Christian.
Grrrrr.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Let's talk about legalism, and try not to get indefinately sidetracked into an Orthodox/Protestant (or whatever) discussion.
quote:
I know of churches who will not allow a woman to lead a service, ones where you will be banned from leading a sunday school class if you happen to live with your partner, churches who won't allow a celibate Gay to be a bishop, churches where drinking is banned, churches who have excommunicated homosexuals etc. etc.
Yeah. I go to one of those churches. Submitting is a concept different from "agreeing" or "comfortable with". Submitting means "I disagree or would do it otherwise, but I won't fight you on this one right now." It's also not the same thing as condoning or supporting.
The one view is that if you disagree or "feel differently" your best course is to say "Screw you guys, I'm going over here to do it RIGHT!" Some people do that and some people stay. People who leave tend to demand "How can you stay and submit to that kind of stuff?!" and people who stay say "Who are you to leave?" That arguement could take up the rest of our natural lives.
When I was 25, I wrote up all the unwritten rules of what my church expected from young people. These were what it seemed we had to do if we were to be treated as good Christians and allowed to participate in church social activities in any way (things like abstainence from alcohol and any forms of "worldly entertainment", no fornication, no swearing, smoking, going to sporting events, voting etc.)
I mailed the list of rules to the 25 most prominent men in our church organization in North America to ask "Do I correctly understand your expectations? Is this what you're asking of us?"
Many of them responded. Every response was rather like what I think was suggested above as to whether or not we need to follow laws: each person said "As Christians, we do not need to follow the law to get into Heaven, but if we don't follow the law, then one wonders if we are Christians at all, or how we could expect anyone to take us seriously when we make that claim." So, "You don't need to in order to be a Christian in God's eyes, but you do if you want to be acceptable in our eyes". This is fence-sitting of a most shameless kind in my never humble opinion.
The old chestnut, the old argument against people who (as above) say "Scripture is scripture, it's from God and so we have to do it, NT or OT" is to point out some of the more bizarre OT scriptures they aren't doing. For instance, my church expected women to follow the "not wearing men's apparel" OT rule (in them not wearing trousers) yet didn't mind people wearing fabric blends, though a proscription against this was in the very same verse. I don't know many Christians who still feel that only worshipping in Jerusalem is allowed, or that eating non-kosher foods is bad (though I've met some who asked me "How can a Christian eat pork?" This use of the rhetorical question is one I grew up hearing as the main "arguement" against many, many things I now feel to be innocuous.)
Many of these things were "done away" in the NT, despite being obligatory in the OT. Hebrews is about that. Circumcision was once mandatory, and now Romans points out that it is an inner thing, and your life can make your circumcision into uncircumcision and vice versa.
The OT people were God's subjects, His country, His people. We are His children, part of His family. Christ's work gave us power to become the sons of God. As such, adopted by Him, our responsibilities and freedoms are very different from the OT stuff. Unless you plan to allow American soldiers in Iraq to take wives to themselves by capturing Iraqi women, shaving their heads and cutting their fingernails off short and living with them for one year, then I think we'll have to face the fact that we are not under the law. That's what most of the Pauline apostles go on and on and on about. The only reason we aren't damned for transgressing the law is because, with Christ, we died to the law. The law is not binding on someone who is dead. We were crucified with Christ, and live with him in a new way, one which is at a new stage, beyond the "law-keeping or law-transgressor" impasse, as Christ not only lived without transgressing, he completely fulfilled the spirit of the law and the human race can now move on to the next thing.
The Pauline apostles present the philosophy of living as if the spiritual things that we have been told are true, are, and they will be seen coming to fruition as a result of our belief. We are not told to fight to keep the "old man" down inside us, repressing his nasty habits using our own willpower. We are told to "reckon him dead". Christian lapses aren't viewed so much as transgressions or disobedience or deriliction of duty (OT concepts) but as "forgetting" what Christ did for us and what position we now occupy, thanks to him.
It's about love. Romans tells us that if we love our brother we fulfill the law in him. We would not likely steal, kill or covet stuff from someone we love, right? So, love instead of obedience. Rather than keeping down our urges, we deal with our urges by getting to know them and ourselves and replacing anger, fear, shame and hate with acceptance and love. Forgiveness and turning the other cheek are not the OT way. They are something Christ brought. Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ, not by Mosaic law. If we place ourselves again under law (as we were under it before the work of Christ) we make the work of Christ to none effect(null and void where we are concerned).
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Mertseger wrote:
quote:
I'm just skeptical that the human organization called Christianity (*) inclusive of the Bible has gotten that Law entirely correct. I am skeptical that any human organization can. The best that we can hope for is an understanding of God's law that converges over time to a closer and closer approximation. Thus, I respect the discipline of others practicing a diversity of ways, and always leave room in my understanding for new ways of understanding and embodying morality.
Well said.
quote:
(*)Yes, I understand the Orthodox position that the Church is more than the human institution thereof but, frankly, I think that position is hubris, dangerous and bunk. Even if the Church is the Christ as a living expression of God's will, it damn well better still organize itself as if it can and will do harm if its power is unwatched and unchecked.
Amen.
I think you can make the case it can and will do harm even if it is watched and checked if, in addition, we aren't always assuming it is apparently human nature to coerce other's behavior under the guise of telling those others what they SHOULD do to be "better" Christians.
It's one thing to provide helpful advice and recommendations and another thing entirely to imply you somehow have the moral authority to tell others what pleases God.
I've come to believe the attitude that assumes such moral authority is the primary barrier that prevents people from coming to faith in Christ.
Rant mode off.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Fr Gregory:
quote:
Authority has been committed by Christ to His Church ... to bind and loose ... to speak in the name of Christ. That is the most fundamental difference between ourselves and the Protestant world. It crops up here over and over again.
Actually, Fr G, we protestants also believe we have that authority, all of us.
However, legalism is very often something we have absorbed from our carers, teachers, church leaders and we then send it out on to others to make them feel guilty and/or apply it to ourselves so that we feel either superior or sinful.
True followers of God submit, commit themselves to God out of love and gratefulness - God has committed Self to them out of love and grace.
However, some people need to have strict laws to get them out of messy lives, addictions, bad habits. Once they have gone through that stage (and that might take a lifetime), they can relax and just go with the flow, because God's character takes over our lives more and more. We become deeply and instinctively in tune with God's ways for us.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The core problem lies in the absence of effective relationships that allow people to be truly honest about what is going on in their lives. Instead we resort to simplistic legalism and give ourselves permission to criticise others publicly. In response the shutters go up.... But there does seem to be problem with libertine behaviour in this generation of Christians; promiscuous drunkness is not consistent with being a Christian, however much it is attractive. At some point such a person is deceiving themselves that they are all right with God.
Ouch. How do you know so much about me?
I knew that damn Patriot act would be trouble...
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
The only reason we aren't damned for transgressing the law is because, with Christ, we died to the law. The law is not binding on someone who is dead. We were crucified with Christ, and live with him in a new way, one which is at a new stage, beyond the "law-keeping or law-transgressor" impasse, as Christ not only lived without transgressing, he completely fulfilled the spirit of the law and the human race can now move on to the next thing.
The Pauline apostles present the philosophy of living as if the spiritual things that we have been told are true, are, and they will be seen coming to fruition as a result of our belief. We are not told to fight to keep the "old man" down inside us, repressing his nasty habits using our own willpower. We are told to "reckon him dead". Christian lapses aren't viewed so much as transgressions or disobedience or deriliction of duty (OT concepts) but as "forgetting" what Christ did for us and what position we now occupy, thanks to him.
It's about love. Romans tells us that if we love our brother we fulfill the law in him. We would not likely steal, kill or covet stuff from someone we love, right? So, love instead of obedience. Rather than keeping down our urges, we deal with our urges by getting to know them and ourselves and replacing anger, fear, shame and hate with acceptance and love. Forgiveness and turning the other cheek are not the OT way. They are something Christ brought. Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ, not by Mosaic law. If we place ourselves again under law (as we were under it before the work of Christ) we make the work of Christ to none effect(null and void where we are concerned).
Neatly explained.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Originally posted by Bonzo:
quote:
Then I'll take madness and confusion.
A person after my own heart.
quote:
I've seen too many laws/teachings that the church has declared as right, which hurt people.
Exactly.
quote:
Blind obedience to something which might be wrong is not an option.
Unfortunately not to enough people, which, I believe, is another result of legalism.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
The danger of separating oneself from the Church, from the successors of the Apostles, is that teaching authority, to be tested against Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, is replaced by nothing more than opinion.
Please help my ignorance: wasn't "Holy Tradition" once no more than someone's opinion?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
quote:
Authority has been committed by Christ to His Church ... to bind and loose ... to speak in the name of Christ. That is the most fundamental difference between ourselves and the Protestant world. It crops up here over and over again.
So you can confidently tell me what God would have me do? Nothing personal, but my faith in God is no small amount larger than my faith in you personally or in any human institution.
And further, does your authority absolve me of my personal responsibility to do what I believe God would have me do?
If this sounds contentious, that is not my intent.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Thank you, Wikkid, that was spectacular. Thanks for sharing your experience. When we talk about legalism it is so very important to speak from an experiential perspective.
I can relate to your experience in your 20s. There are so many unspoken rules to deal with in many Christian traditions!! That Legalism, as you point out, is wrong.
I have experienced within Protestant Christianity two ends of the spectrum. I grew up in Church that sounds similar in atmosphere to the one you described above. Regardless of whether they taught it or not, my conclusion from early adolesence onwards was that I could not live up to the requirements of Christians and simply gave up trying. I wanted nothing to do with Christian community. I took a long detour of some 15 years or so, attempting only briefly from time to time to reintegrate with church in Protestant liberal or conservative forms, with little success.
I felt caught between a rock a hard place. It seemed to me a choice only between two extremes. On one hand there were the legalists where one's acceptance was determined by seemingly trivial and external standards. On the other hand I saw preached an inclusive "come as you are" approach. At the time, I needed that. Among these "non-legalist" circles, however, any suggestion of practicing the "disciplines" of reading the Bible or prayer or fasting was immediately called "legalism". This approach felt good and liberating at first but I eventually looked at myself and others and realized that fear of "legalism" was now preventing us from suggesting to one another that we follow even proven courses of action. This left many of us painfully enslaved to besetting sins and became a practical barrier to experiencing the transformative grace of God. In a reactionary sort of way the words "quiet time" would evoke rancid charges of "the Law", "legalism", and the like. Neither leadership nor laity could, even in a loving and parental way, suggest to another that their course of action would certainly lead to greater depression, brokeness or even death.
Where now was love? "Legalism" has in some circles become a reactionary buzzword accusation that prevents whole communities of believers from experiencing the liberation that Christ offers us. One of the biggest dangers of Legalism is that it communicates that Sin is a piece of candy that Christians don't get to taste. If we replace Legalism with the unspoken rule that no one can offer loving guidance, but continue in the misperception of the nature of Sin, then we are doomed to find out the hard way that Sin leads to slavery, depression, pain and even death. It prevents us from experiencing blessed communion with God.
This is a terribly important issue as I see it in many U.S. forms of Christianity, and has led me to consider classic Christianity in Orthodoxy.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Using Fr Gregory's definition number two: quote:
"Legalism" in the sense of faithfulness to God's Law as an expression of our love for him and a desire to pattern our lives after Christ and his teaching ... this I take to be wholely good and part of a Christian life being perfected by grace.
I agree totally with this. Although God loves us whether we obey the law or not, I still believe he wants us to try, just as we want our children, whom we love unconditionally, to try to obey the house rules. I have never felt that it was a reward system of; if I go to church on Sunday then I don't have to love my neighbor, but rather, God thinks I will be better equiped to love my neighbor if I go to church on Sunday.
If I had, had the misfortune to grow up in a church like Wikked Person's then I would probably hate legalism, too, but I come from the background of a 1960's flower child and I've seen first hand the vanity of thinking that we can make right decisions all by ourselves based on our own capacity to love.
We thought we could live in communes and share food and sex partners without jealousy if we just approached everything with an open loving heart, unfettered by the rigid standards of our parents. More often we ended up like the classic Cheech and Chong routine, arguing about who ate the most slices of bologna.
I think God gave us the commandments, not as a price to pay for his regard but as a gift of guidance to protect us from our own hard hearts and self-delusions.
Does becoming a Christian make us able to love so well that we no longer need that guidance? If so then I'm not there yet.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
The "which Church?" question doesn't really apply for Catholics or Orthodox christians. The key here is whether the church stands in the Apostolic Succession and is preserved by Christ's own promised gift. Those churches which are Orthodox and those which are Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Bp of Rome) do stand in the Apostolic Succession, for sure. Other churches cannot have that assurance.
Please don't take this personally but this mentality is exactly the reason I wrote the original post.
But since I don't know for sure, and if you do in fact have God's authority over me somehow, I REALLY REALLY apologize.
And it occurs to me if you do have that authority you'll also have God's compassion so I really shouldn't worry.
It's just all so complicated and I know so little...
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Charis
quote:
So you can confidently tell me what God would have me do? Nothing personal, but my faith in God is no small amount larger than my faith in you personally or in any human institution.
Individually, I am a poor judge of God's will in my life.
As some might say: "God and I alone have gotten into some pretty bad scrapes. God and I and my priest never have."
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
So - would our opponents of 'legalism' like to say whether the church can ever exercise authority - or should it ignore the lifestyles of its members?
I would like to say it should pay at least as much attention to it's own lifestyle as it does to those of it's members.
Self distrust is a hugely healthy and sound principle that is, alas, less obvious in the church than it should be.
IMHO.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
quote:
The Pauline apostles present the philosophy of living as if the spiritual things that we have been told are true, are, and they will be seen coming to fruition as a result of our belief. We are not told to fight to keep the "old man" down inside us, repressing his nasty habits using our own willpower. We are told to "reckon him dead". Christian lapses aren't viewed so much as transgressions or disobedience or deriliction of duty (OT concepts) but as "forgetting" what Christ did for us and what position we now occupy, thanks to him.
Amazing and excellent. This one goes into my "Quotes" file.
Thank you.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
