Thread: Purgatory: Legalism: can anyone be free from it? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001066

---

Posted by Charis (# 206) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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!"
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Ronist (# 5343) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
I second Fr. Gregory's question, because I have often seen "legalism" derided where what is favored instead is antinomianism.
 

---

Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :
 
Me too, Kyralessa.

One of the things the Scriptures are clear about is that what we do matters.

Ruudy
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
"Thou shalt not kill."

Written down by men or by God?

Answer: Yes.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
"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: ?.
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
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)?
 

---

Posted by Crash Test Christian (# 5313) on :
 
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 :

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Bonzo

Who said anything about blind obedience? 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.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 

quote:

---

the Church does enjoy Christ's teaching authority.

---

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.

---

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'.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

We can't have freedom unless we grant the same to others.

---

quote:

---

I second Fr. Gregory's question, because I have often seen "legalism" derided where what is favored instead is antinomianism.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Charis (# 206) on :
 

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.

---

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).

---

quote:

---

Then I'll take madness and confusion.

---

quote:

---

I've seen too many laws/teachings that the church has declared as right, which hurt people.

---

quote:

---

Blind obedience to something which might be wrong is not an option.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruudy:

In a reactionary sort of way the words "quiet time" would evoke rancid charges of "the Law", "legalism", and the like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruudy:
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."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion: Charis, if I thought that the Church was a human institution I would agree with you. It is, however, a divine institution (in the sense that it was established by our Lord and is guaranteed by Him) with human and divine members..."Christ is the head of the body, the Church".

---

quote:

---

Sin is a piece of candy that Christians don't get to taste

---

quote:

---

Charis writes:
I recognize the value of counsel but but I think you are in fact the best judge of what God would have you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruudy:
It depends on 1) how bad a judge I actually am, and 2) what the alternatives are.

---

quote:

---

Fortunately, from an examination of Church history and conversations with others, I am coming to believe that there is an authority that is much greater than any individual interpretation of scripture, that it has an earthly organizational manifestation, and that I can trust it.

---

quote:

---

I no longer have to believe the Serpent's accusation that all (including the earthly institutional part of the Church) is a construct designed to keep me from what would taste good.

---

quote:

---

Bold

---

quote:

---

that wikkid person said:

Many of them are obviously (to judge by the elabourateness of their places of worship and the number of people doing what they're told) getting their hands on an awful lot of power and money. Best of all, they like to hold a position of priviledge. Being "God's Favourites" makes them very happy. How nice for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine: Ah, but I am God's Favorite.

---

Proven incorrect by not placing "u" in favorite.

quote:

---

You are God's Favorite, too. You yourself.

---

quote:

---

Any qualifications on the trusting part?

---

quote:

---

Well, OK. The Serpent never said that to me.

---

Apparently he didn't have to. I infer that you are saying it yourself.

[Fixed UBB. As I said to Charis, bold makes quotes stand out.]

[ 31. December 2003, 00:28: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by Sasha (# 2832) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Once upon a time, long ago in the 1960's, there were these young people who didn't like how things were being done around them by older people. There wasn't enough humanity, enough love, enough sharing, enough human connection in their world and they felt this was bad.

The world they lived in was all about rules and rights and people getting their hands on more power and money. It all seemed to be proof that society exists in order to preserve positions of priviledge for certain people.

There were a lot of rules these young people didn't like in society. Many of them weren't even real laws, but were treated as if they were. Things like how long people's hair should be, how they should talk, how they should dress, what they should be allowed to believe, all of this bothered them.

They decided to go off on their own and do things in a new way. A better way. The older people told them "Who are you to do this? You can't do that! It won't work! It's a Bad Idea!" These young people tried to do it anyway. If men weren't supposed to have long hair, their men had long hair. If women were supposed to wear bras, they didn't wear any. Whether there was more loving, caring, sharing and human connection resulting from a permanent, internal change in the spirits of the people will be seen later by how they dealt with getting older themselves.

A lot of young people were just along for the ride. A lot of people just wanted to smoke a lot of pot and have a lot of sex and in other ways live free of the stringent rules and expectations they felt they were now no longer under the power of. "Do as thou wilt is the full extent of the law" became a popular credo again (originally coined by that lapsed Plymouth Brethren Christian, Aleister Crowley.) For these people, this was like a nice vacation from the structure they eventually rejoined with.

Thing is, many people wanted much more freedom and much LESS responsibility to do good with that freedom. That never works. Freedom is a kind of power to choose, and with great power comes great responsibility, as Peter Parker, reknowned wall-crawler could tell you.

As often happens, they tried it out whole-heartedly for a while, it didn't seem to be working out how they thought, they sounded like a Cheech and Chong routine, fighting over balongna in the same way they would soon fight over money and power and positions of priviledge, so they gave up, lived a lot more like their parents than they'd ever have imagined possible, and forever after told young people who wanted to live differently "Who are you to do this? You can't do that! It won't work! It's a Bad Idea!"

Now they had a special new bit of their own to tack on the end. It was: "I know. Take it from me. I've been there and tried that, and I couldn't make it work out the way I wanted it to, and I'm sure you'll find neither can you. Don't fight the system. BE the system."

The moral of this story is that humans like to err on both sides of most questions and then give up and pretend that nothing works. Legality is one error, just as using liberty as a license to sin is another. Doing both at different times in one's life is typical.

God forgives a lot of things. We don't need to live lives of quiet, careful desperation. We don't need other people to tell us who God is, but maybe they can help us remember to look to Him.

There are Christians who are here to help us, from hundreds of churches all claiming to be in some special position of Divine Stamp of Approval-ship. Many of them are obviously (to judge by the elabourateness of their places of worship and the number of people doing what they're told) getting their hands on an awful lot of power and money. Best of all, they like to hold a position of priviledge. Being "God's Favourites" makes them very happy. How nice for them.

---

Wow Wikked Person. You told a little bit about your personal experience to demonstrate why you disliked legalism and later I told a little bit about my personal experience to explain why a little bit of legalism has been a good thing for me.

The next thing I know you've taken my sketchy bits of information and developed and exaggerated them into a story of a totally phoney, lascivious, drug using woman who has sold out her principles for money and power and goes around telling other people how to live. None of that is true. I'm just expressing what has and hasn't worked for me and my friends. I have never told anyone how to live or whether or not their actions were wrong or right. You have absolutely no right to make these judgements about me.
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
Sorry, should have clarified: The parable is about your generation, not you in particular.
 

---

Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :
 
Sasha, if it's any consolation, I really appreciated your thoughtful contribution to the thread. Wikkid Person's use of your story struck me as rude. It is one thing to parody an institution when parody is the only voice available, it is another to parody a person's personal story without regard for their welfare. I felt it reflected on you in no way at all.

*intercom announcement voice*
We are glad you left the Brethren, Michael. You can stop using parody now. You're 34. You can also stop projecting the faults of the Brethren onto all organized forms of Christianity. Your anger and resentment is unbecoming. Enjoy life.
*intercom announcement ends*


I think it/s getting hot in here
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
1. I have not left the Brethren.
2. That wasn't parody of any kind. It was a parable about the generation that ended being my generations bosses. It was an attempt to tell the truth about something using generalization. I think we've all heard of someone who does that?

It's not everyday I put forward my best attempt at understanding the spirit of Christ and have an exhippie tell me I'm being idealistic.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Charis

Context is important. My Church does not tell me what to do. Nor would it approve of me telling other people what to do. Sure, there are some self appointed bogus staretz around who hold people in bondage. There are these in all the churches ... but it is not typical of where I'm speaking from. I have not had to react against legalism like you ... I have sought shelter from the howling winds of "Well, I don't know really. Nothing matters that much surely."

Remember, don't call me Shirley!
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Sorry, should have clarified: The parable is about your generation, not you in particular.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:

It was a parable about the generation that ended being my generations bosses.

---

quote:

---

It's not everyday I put forward my best attempt at understanding the spirit of Christ and have an exhippie tell me I'm being idealistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasha:
Sorry, lots of cross posting, it takes me a terribly long time to write a post.

Wikked Person, I didn't see your PM until just now, I'm sorry that you felt my first post on this thread had "slapped you down" and was condescending. For the most part I was agreeing with the quote by Fr. Gregory and not responding to you at all, I'm sorry you saw it that way.

I'm grateful for your apology and I'm sorry I derailed the thread.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

LEGALISM - strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>

---

quote:

---

by Ruudy: Then what of unity? - emphasized over and over again in the NT.

---

quote:

---

that Wikkid Person: Having a good attitude to structure, rules, authority, compromise and submitting one to the other, while also knowing about being free, giving an account of YOURSELF to God, bearing one another's burdens but also bearing your own, this is what to me seems like the healthy balance we're seeking.

---

quote:

---

Alt Wally: That really begs the question then, what is unity? Is it simply one church body, one way of looking at the atonement, one way of interpreting the Bible, etc.? The oldest traditions of Christianity from what I can tell show a striking diversity, even when part of one "church".

---

quote:

---

Can anyone in my community or church come up and tell me what to do? Or is it limited to a small group of “accountability buddies”? Or limited to a spiritual advisor/mentor with whom I have developed a deep relationship?

---

I'd make the point that NO one can TELL anyone what to do.

Provide counsel? Sure. Make recommendations? Please - I need advice. Challenge me? Don't stop - I have to have it.

But imply you somehow have a closer line to God than I do by telling me what God would have me do without making repeated disclaimers it is just your opinion, your best guess?

Does anyone really believe any human has the prerogative to do that? The idea gives me the willies.

But that's just me and I've been wrong before: one time I thought I was wrong but it turned out I was right...

And thanks for the thoughtful discussion: I remain convinced legalism is a problem with huge ramifications and overcoming it will remain, alas, a distant goal we can only aspire to.
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
"Submitting yourselves one to another" is a thing I do on a case by case basis. Me being me, most people don't want the agravation of having to convince me of anything anyway.

I feel my church has authority over who worships there and about how church events will go. I don't feel they have authority over whether or not I have "non Christian room-mates" and stuff like that. They have tut-tutted over things as individuals, but have never as a group, officially tried to wield any authority I don't believe they have.
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 

quote:

---

by Ruudy: Diversity in unity makes sense when unity is understood primarily as relational or communal.

---

quote:

---

Can anyone in my community or church come up and tell me what to do? Or is it limited to a small group of “accountability buddies”? Or limited to a spiritual advisor/mentor with whom I have developed a deep relationship?

---

I'm not sure that anyone can come up to someone else and tell them they must do something or other. This applies whether it would be to man who is going to commit bigamy or to a woman to say she must wear a hat. Advise, counsel, yes, yes, yes!! But ultimately we are responsible for our own actions, and we must be prepared to take that responsibility.

But legalism also exists where pastors/minister/leaders tell their congregation, or individual members of it that they must do something without taking circumstances into consideration

An example of this would be where a woman had suffered abuse from her husband for many years, both prior to becoming a Christian, and afterwards, and yet was told that if she were to leave that abusive husband she would have to leave the church. That to me is legalism gone mad. Where is the love, support, compassion that she would need?

Unhappily there are many churches who would hold views like that. It would be hard to sit in submission to such leadership.

Nic
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Nicodemia

When I hear such stories I go and and .
 

---

Posted by Charis (# 206) on :
 
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:

quote:

---

Me being me, most people don't want the agravation of having to convince me of anything anyway.

---

Congratulations on creating that environment. Life is much simpler when everyone understands their respective roles.

quote:

---

They have tut-tutted over things as individuals, but have never as a group, officially tried to wield any authority I don't believe they have.

---

quote:

---

Everybody claims their own stuff.

---

quote:

---

We shouldn't approach one another with that infantile kind of pride that says "My Dad can kick your dad's ass, nyah, nyah"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruudy:
But the Gospel has Jesus using the word "ecclessia". And according to my Penguin Atlas of World History, for centuries before the Gospel was written "ecclessia" had referred specifically to a governmental assembly in Greek culture.

---

quote:

---

The word ecclesia also had a specific meaning in Greek-speaking Jewish culture. In the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament made around 100 BC, the work meant 'the community of Israel, whether assembled or not'.

When Jesus spoke to his followers of the ecclesia, he was telling them that they were a community.

---

I certainly don't object to your "also meant" for the word ecclesia. But I do question your jump from the primary meaning of the word to a summary declaration of Christ's intent, to the exclusion of other layers of intent.

Meanings are rich, and in my discussion above I was making the point that the Greek-culture etymology calls for an understanding that includes an institutional and organizational component.

That being said, I am not a professional scholar, which you might be. I would by all means defer to those with a deeper understanding of Greek. If you know of any good exegeses of the verses in which Christ uses ecclesia from both Protestant and Orthodox/Catholic ecclesiological perspectives, I would appreciate a referral.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Ruudy

I hope you don't mind me putting in my 2 cents worth. From AnOrthodoxPOV™, I don't think one can better Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos ...

Ekklesia

[ 01. January 2004, 13:04: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :
 
Fr. Gregory,

Mind? Of course not. I would have felt neglected had you not offered some food for thought. Thank you for the link.

It may be time for a thread in Kerygma regarding the "Jesus said 'Church'" verses. Although I think someone started such a thread in the twelth century. The thread grew very long and came to be called Ecclesiology.

Ruudy
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0