|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Grace and legalism
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
A comment by Polly in the "Revival in Cwmbran" thread sparked this idea in my head that has been percolating for a while. I thought I would open it up as a discussion.
I think most would agree with the assertion that many churches have been wrapped up in "legalism" for many a year if not a century. There has been a prevalence in recent years for "newer" churches to espouse grace from the pulpit rather vigorously. In rhetoric it seems to sound exceedingly good; movements such as SGM, NFI, Vineyard, and the charismatic Anglicans are some that I have observed this within; the idea being that God loves and forgives unconditionally, therefore the church must be a place of grace.
OK, that all sounds well and good to me, however in practice it always seems to work out slightly different. While, when one is on the fringes, a "seeker", so to speak, questions and sin might well be "covered in grace", but as you integrate into a church the expectation is that your behaviour falls in line with the expectation of the leaders of that group. At that point, it seems, grace ceases to apply. Worse than that it seems to be there is an extent to which we (or church leaders, rather?) can extend grace (dependant on the group; ie. getting drunk now and then is fine, but stealing from work isn't, bad examples, but please don't get hung up on them).
So, my question is, is there a way of being a "grace-filled" community which does not mean accepting everyone as they are, and expecting no change at all; and does that therefore lead to Universalism? This is something I have been struggling with lately, it seems that, despite the change in rhetoric, the practice still remains that you either fall in line, or be damned. What are your experiences with this, in different church groups?
Please forgive me if this ground has already been covered.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
While, when one is on the fringes, a "seeker", so to speak, questions and sin might well be "covered in grace", but as you integrate into a church the expectation is that your behaviour falls in line with the expectation of the leaders of that group. At that point, it seems, grace ceases to apply.
...So, my question is, is there a way of being a "grace-filled" community which does not mean accepting everyone as they are, and expecting no change at all; and does that therefore lead to Universalism? This is something I have been struggling with lately, it seems that, despite the change in rhetoric, the practice still remains that you either fall in line, or be damned. What are your experiences with this, in different church groups?
Huh, good questions. Thinking about the leadership team of my church (a Vineyard church, as it happens), quite a lot of difference in belief is tolerated. People are held in high regard, I think, if they seem to be acting with integrity, i.e. true to their own beliefs.
Our church places a strong emphasis on housegroups and pretty much all 'discipline' stuff is worked out through those groups, as far as I can tell, and through relationships generally. The senior pastor and others who do the Sunday teaching talk fairly often about the church as community, one aspect of which being that we should hold each other to account for our spiritual 'journey'.
So, by way of (entirely fictional) example, if I were to mention that I took illegal drugs then I expect someone (my housegroup leaders, most likely) would try to have a chat with me. I might then explain that actually I think it's fine for me to smoke the odd joint because it relieves my MS symptoms, and I'm not supplying to anyone else. My feeling is that my church would be okay with this (as long as I didn't go around bragging about my breaking the law) because I was acting true to my conscience.
I think it's good for churches to tolerate (even encourage?) a certain amount of diversity in terms of belief and practice, but I do recognise there have to be some 'red lines'.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
It's very rare in the Gospels for Jesus to point out someone's sins to them. It is expected and assumed that, given sufficient self-examination, everyone will know when they have sinned. The question, presumably, is whether that self-knowledge was specific to a culture steeped in the Law, or whether it is an inherent trait. If the latter then encouraging self-examination and exploring how to deal with what is revealed should be sufficient to produce change, rather than dictating particular behaviour.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Wow, what a great topic! It might even distract me from the Cwmbran thread ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
First off, I would say unequivocally that the best thing I took away from NFI was a different theological understanding of grace, and I told Terry Virgo so when I left (this was however in spite of a singular lack of grace on their part at that point ![[Frown]](frown.gif) , which taught me that seemingly great theology did not automatically lead to good practice). I've also identified a number of defects in the NFI view of grace since then.
I also agree that legalism frequently lurks close in the shadow of grace. In Andrew Walker's Restoring the Kingdom Geogre Tarleton memorably mentions tithing being a form of legalism that returned under the guise of a "Kingdom Principle". There are plenty of other such "principles" out there.
Here's a couple of throwaway ideas about what grace means to me now:
- acceptance of people as they are without judgement
- encouraging people to be motivated by grace rather than by guilt, and teaching along those same lines
- straining camels in preference to gnats
- acknowledging that any positive achievements are due to grace alone
Grace emphatically doesn't mean turning a blind eye, or constitute an excuse for wrongful actions. On the contrary, I think it means having the moral resources to face the truth fearlessly, even if it's embarrassing or sordid.
As to the issue of how this plays out in terms of church discipline and universalism, I'll have to think a bit more about the latter, but with regard to the former, my view post-NFI is that a lot of what is written about church discipline has to do with what goes on when the church is gathered together. That's more about ground rules for a particular context than legalistic meddling. I think a lot of where the new churches go (or went) wrong was in trying to micro-manage members' private lives rather than public worship.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
To me grace is given so that we may be transformed to be more Christ like and therefore not to continue in sin.
But this is a process and God doen't work to my timescale.
As a Pastor I feel I have to be aware and available to anyone in my church where I serve to walk with, help discern in this process.
I feel slightly ueasy trying to do this in a situation where I have no direct involvement or trying to base a judgement on 2nd hand sources where I have very litte knowledge of.
Unless I have reason to suggest otherwise I try to give a person the benefit of the doubt.
I don't always get this balance right.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
As a Pastor I feel I have to be aware and available to anyone in my church where I serve to walk with, help discern in this process.
Isn't it instead your role to equip and encourage others to do the pastoring (and the apostling, prophet-ing, evangelising, and teaching), rather than to do it all yourself? /Devil's Advocate
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
I feel slightly ueasy trying to do this in a situation where I have no direct involvement or trying to base a judgement on 2nd hand sources where I have very litte knowledge of.
A good reason to encourage others to exercise their pastoral gifts! Unless your church is really little, there's no way you'll be able to have a relationship with everyone that's strong enough for you to give meaningful pastoral care and challenge (however gifted you are). ISTM anyway.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
As a Pastor I feel I have to be aware and available to anyone in my church where I serve to walk with, help discern in this process.
Isn't it instead your role to equip and encourage others to do the pastoring (and the apostling, prophet-ing, evangelising, and teaching), rather than to do it all yourself? /Devil's Advocate
No not instead. If's more of both/and not either/or.
The other scenario I spoke was more about observing a situation in another church I have no direct involvement in rather than something in my own back yard.
Fwiw I do serve a small church and yes I encourage all people to exercise their own giftings. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Wow, what a great topic! It might even distract me from the Cwmbran thread
That was the singular intention
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- acceptance of people as they are without judgement
- encouraging people to be motivated by grace rather than by guilt, and teaching along those same lines
- straining camels in preference to gnats
- acknowledging that any positive achievements are due to grace alone
Grace emphatically doesn't mean turning a blind eye, or constitute an excuse for wrongful actions.
How do we deal with the grey areas then? I loved what South Coast Kevin proposed actually, and if I saw that played out in a church I would be very impressed at that display of grace. I just can't see it happening; at least not in the churches I have seen. We could of course revert to the old dead horse of homosexuality, and how that would play out in a grace context. The line then comes where the church defines "what is a wrongful action". I guess this is the heart of the issue, or question, rather, really; how do we define our morality, and is it, in some ways too wide? If it is, is it possible to be too narrow, on what is a "wrongful action". The argument to the above being, that the further we go into relativistic thinking (which I am actually coming round to more and more), the further we go from many things actually being able to be billed "wrongful", and we pretty much land at "unlawful = wrongful", at which point, of course, the church (by and large) is not yet.
quote:
I think a lot of where the new churches go (or went) wrong was in trying to micro-manage members' private lives rather than public worship.
Yes, essentially, shepherding; I guess the people enacting this see it as an act of grace though.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
To me grace is given so that we may be transformed to be more Christ like and therefore not to continue in sin.
I get this completely, but has the church taken on the role of the "enforcer" rather than the "enabler"? Again, I'm thinking particularly in terms of church discipline - this is normally wrapped up in very flowery language that emphasises how much it hurts the church to see this person in their sin, but that they cannot be a "member" in this sin, or similar, (at least that's how I've seen some "ex-communications" that have been made public).
[ 19. May 2013, 21:15: Message edited by: wishandaprayer ]
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
How do we deal with the grey areas then? I loved what South Coast Kevin proposed actually, and if I saw that played out in a church I would be very impressed at that display of grace.
I'd like to think we are pretty close to that in our church. At least I think the other evo churches in town think we are wildly lax anyway ![[Cool]](cool.gif) quote:
We could of course revert to the old dead horse of homosexuality, and how that would play out in a grace context.
I wrote a whole bit on that in my first post above and deleted it. Gay marriage has just become legal here in France, and one of my nightmares is a gay couple asking us to bless their marriage. I console myself with the thought that any gay couple's assumptions about how our church is likely to treat them (which I fear may be partly justified) will probably keep this scenario at bay, but then I feel bad that I find this a consoling thought. quote:
The line then comes where the church defines "what is a wrongful action". I guess this is the heart of the issue, or question, rather, really; how do we define our morality, and is it, in some ways too wide?
I have found one place this has been discussed on the Ship before. There I linked to the "ethical square", the four sides of which are the law (which can be any law whether civil, OT, house rules, etc), motivation, circumstances and consequences. I like this a lot because it gives room for grace within sensible boundaries. quote:
I'm thinking particularly in terms of church discipline - this is normally wrapped up in very flowery language that emphasises how much it hurts the church to see this person in their sin, but that they cannot be a "member" in this sin, or similar, (at least that's how I've seen some "ex-communications" that have been made public).
I think the major problem here is often one of gnats and camels. The last person I recall excommunicating (in a previous incarnation of our church) seems to have joined us again anyway (and I apologised to her for excommunicating her the first time around, as I would no longer do so on the same basis).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Here is yet another 2008 thread on "Church Discipline Discussed".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
I think most would agree with the assertion that many churches have been wrapped up in "legalism" for many a year if not a century.
I think this is often it's own type of legalism. The trouble is that we are too prone to saying "I thank you God that I'm not like that Pharisee over there".
Grace has neither been as absent from the older churches as some people would have it, nor as present in the newer churches.
quote:
So, my question is, is there a way of being a "grace-filled" community which does not mean accepting everyone as they are, and expecting no change at all; and does that therefore lead to Universalism?
Preach the law in all its fury and the gospel in all its sweetness. The change that we have experienced is ontological - but only realised eschatalogically - in the mean time it's a struggle (which is why I think it's instructive that NFI reject 'simul justus..')
[ 19. May 2013, 23:06: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Fwiw I do serve a small church and yes I encourage all people to exercise their own giftings. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
No problem at all; I expect the miscommunication was almost completely due to my jumping to unreasonable conclusions. The enabling role of church leaders (as opposed to doing all the work) is a hobby horse of mine, you see... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Just remembered a blog post I read the other day on that topic - linkety-link
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Wishandaprayer, you can expect change and be a universalist - I do. I just see Hell as not permanent because the Cross makes no sense to me if not everyone is saved. Just my two cents.
This is an interesting topic because it's not something I think about very often - I'm guessing that working this all out is more of a thing for newer, evangelical churches. I hope that doesn't sound like a criticism of evangelical churches, it's not meant to be, just that I tend to think of doctrine and dogma as opposed to legalism.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
I think most would agree with the assertion that many churches have been wrapped up in "legalism" for many a year if not a century.
I think this is often it's own type of legalism.
Maybe. Notice, I'm not asserting in the OP that the church is any better now, just that, in many forms, many churches have been legalistic. It's fairly indisputable isn't it? Granted, the evidence by and large will be anecdotal, but I think the volume of such is enough to say that it could well be given?
quote:
Preach the law in all its fury and the gospel in all its sweetness. The change that we have experienced is ontological - but only realised eschatalogically - in the mean time it's a struggle (which is why I think it's instructive that NFI reject 'simul justus..')
So how exactly does this display grace in its fullness; and in "preaching the law in all its fury" where does that leave us with Romans 8? Let me put it another way round.. on the cross Jesus cries out, of his tormentors, "Father, forgive them, etc." do we hold that those people were forgiven then? Or damned? I think that has knock on effects onto how we view grace onto all sinners, doesn't it?
What I'm getting at, more than the ontological change itself, is how churches seem ready to decide who has been ontologically changed, in that sense.
Eutychus - I see your point about gay marriage, and how it is particularly poignant now. But more importantly than that, because I imagine it may not come up as often as the alternative is - how do you welcome gay people into the congregation under grace, and what obligation do you put on them to change their ways. I realise this comes round to almost a "membership" question, but I guess, do we set the bars for "membership" of our churches higher than the bar for the "universal church"; that is, do we say that continuing in certain sins (if indeed we even hold that homosexuality is a sin, which I am not sure I do) invalidates ones regeneracy while others (for example, incessant lying and exaggeration, visible in many charismatic leaders) does not? So how would you approach these people, under grace?
Jade - I'm glad you have reached a higher plane of thinking No, I'm just kidding. I'm not sure I'm there, in terms of being a universalist, but I'm on the journey, possibly. The question of Jesus crying out "Father, forgive them.." is particularly important for me right now, because it requires no action on their part. I just can't reconcile your view that Hell is not permanent - but that's OT and probably a topic for another thread . I think a lot of legalism comes out of dogma, and generally some of the newer evangelical churches tend to be terribly dogmatic about oh, so many things! So I'm not sure what you meant about thinking about "doctrine and dogma rather than legalism"? Do you think there will be a large scale shift towards Universalism, in that case? Do you think that's the natural outworking of the fullness of God's grace?
[ 20. May 2013, 00:58: Message edited by: wishandaprayer ]
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sorry, what I meant was that for churches with more clear-cut doctrine, something is either in line with doctrine or it's not - there's less room for legalism.
I don't know if there will be a shift towards universalism - I suspect not though, and I am perfectly fine with others not being universalists.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
So, my question is, is there a way of being a "grace-filled" community which does not mean accepting everyone as they are, and expecting no change at all; and does that therefore lead to Universalism?
What's wrong with Universalism? Why is it being used as a reductio ad absurdum terminus? Cannot one be a universalist, yet still think that we need to root out sin from our lives /slash/ open ourselves to God's Spirit? Or vice versa? There are a lot of assumptions lying under the table here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
do we say that continuing in certain sins (if indeed we even hold that homosexuality is a sin, which I am not sure I do) invalidates ones regeneracy while others (for example, incessant lying and exaggeration, visible in many charismatic leaders) does not?
It may come as no surprise to you that I tend to think the latter examples you cite are more at risk of "invalidating regeneracy" than the former and that the church has its focus all wrong in this respect.
More candidly, I think the problem (whether of homosexuality or of something of another nature such as gossiping or persistent lying) comes not so much at a membership level (it certainly doesn't in my current church) but at a leadership level. If a hapless practicing homosexual somehow stumbled through the doors of our church I hope they would feel welcome and I really don't think we'd have much trouble welcoming them or, other things being equal, not putting any obligation on them to change. However, being candid again, we might have problems deciding whether they were leadership material or explaining to them why they weren't. Which they might well see as outrageously unfair and a betrayal of the spirit in which they were welcomed.
Another way of putting this is that it's a dilemma between the Church feeling called to uphold certain values in terms of conduct and fully and honestly welcoming people who don't conform to them. How we solve this from a grace perspective is still a challenge to me, although the "ethical box" helps a bit.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
So, my question is, is there a way of being a "grace-filled" community which does not mean accepting everyone as they are, and expecting no change at all; and does that therefore lead to Universalism?
What's wrong with Universalism? Why is it being used as a reductio ad absurdum terminus? Cannot one be a universalist, yet still think that we need to root out sin from our lives /slash/ open ourselves to God's Spirit? Or vice versa? There are a lot of assumptions lying under the table here.
That's a great point you make. I did not mean to present universalism as something that was "wrong". I apologise for that. I meant that would a real grace filled community, that got the actual magnitude of grace, inevitably lead to universalist belief; ie. that that is indeed the truth.
I take your point that one could be a universalist and believe that we need to root out sin and change, indeed one could argue that being "compelled by grace" (which can often turn into being compelled by your church) to change, makes much more sense in an universalist context.
Anyway, I apologise for the misunderstanding.
Jade - unfortunately I don't get how clear-cut doctrine, and something being "in line" or not makes less room for legalism; doesn't it just put more words around legalism? Surely the very expectation that someone falls "in line" with doctrine, is legalistic in itself?
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
So how exactly does this display grace in its fullness; and in "preaching the law in all its fury" where does that leave us with Romans 8?
One doesn't get to Romasn 8 without going through Romans 7 - and we all go through Romans 7->8 constantly (I suspect you may not subscribe to this).
All of life is repentance - and in this context the purpose of the Law is to afflict the old man within the comfortable.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I just read that, and gulped. Do you really mean that, that all of life is repentance? And by 'all' you mean what it commonly understood by it, that is, there is nothing which is not included within that stricture? Well, I can see why Christianity sometimes strikes me as a ghastly anti-life philosophy!
I remember reading one of G. M. Hopkins' sermons, where he recommended that the ploughman should spend every moment at work in repentance and prayer, and I thought, what a terrible doctrine. His furrows would be way off!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just read that, and gulped. Do you really mean that, that all of life is repentance? And by 'all' you mean what it commonly understood by it, that is, there is nothing which is not included within that stricture? Well, I can see why Christianity sometimes strikes me as a ghastly anti-life philosophy!
I can sympathise with your position completely here. I guess this is what strikes me from this view of "grace"; the church talks about being free, but there is very little freedom displayed by Christians, more examples of trying to walk between lines that are exceedingly narrow.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just read that, and gulped. Do you really mean that, that all of life is repentance? And by 'all' you mean what it commonly understood by it, that is, there is nothing which is not included within that stricture?
No, I mean every part of your life is supposed to be characterised by repentance. Not that repentance is all you ever think about.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
but there is very little freedom displayed by Christians
It seems that you interpret grace as 'freedom to do what I like'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
...the church talks about being free, but there is very little freedom displayed by Christians, more examples of trying to walk between lines that are exceedingly narrow.
Another plug for (the recently-departed) Dallas Willard, sorry - he proposes in 'The Divine Conspiracy' that Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is not meant in a legalistic 'You must behave like this' way, but is supposed to show us what the good Christian life looks like. In other words, as we abide more fully in Christ and let God transform our inner being, our lives will simply look more like the kind of life set out by Jesus in Matthew 6-9.
He uses the analogy of training and practising; if a dancer, a linguist or a sportsperson want to be better at what they do, they have to commit to a training regime. Otherwise they simply won't make much progress in their chosen field.
Likewise for Christians, if we don't 'train in righteousness' (which, Willard says, means undertaking spiritual disciplines like praying, celebrating, living simply, confessing etc.) then we won't make progress in becoming more Christlike in how we live.
Willard explains it much better than this... Beg, steal or borrow a copy of 'The Divine Conspiracy' and you'll see!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
but there is very little freedom displayed by Christians
It seems that you interpret grace as 'freedom to do what I like'.
No, not at all. I know exactly where you are coming from of course, and I probably actually largely hold similar views; what I'm trying to ascertain is whether the opinion of grace that I've got now, driven largely by the culture and context within which I've grown up is not wide enough.
As I've said above, being "compelled by grace" to live a life of holiness is something that is talked about very often, so a wider view of grace would allow this. However, I know in my own life I have been characterised by fear rather than freedom, I can only talk for myself, because I can't read into the motives of others.
I can see where you're coming from - and in some ways I'm playing devil's advocate in this argument, and presenting a more extreme form of views than I hold (for now). To clarify what I meant when I said "there is very little freedom displayed by Christians" I did not mean "I see very few Christians partaking in orgies" or "I see very few Christians parties that have coke [not the soft drink] doing the rounds"; I meant, I see lots of Christians characterised (at least in my opinion, as someone who has been in the faith almost 30 years) by fear, rather than freedom; and that the reason that is compelling them to conform (at least in my eyes, and from conversations that I have had) is fear of the repercussions of not conforming, rather than compelling by grace.
Does that make any sense? Thank you all for bearing with me.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
rather than freedom; and that the reason that is compelling them to conform (at least in my eyes, and from conversations that I have had) is fear of the repercussions of not conforming, rather than compelling by grace.
Does that make any sense? Thank you all for bearing with me.
Yes it does make sense. I have a few comments; sometimes the fear is driven by an insufficient understanding of the Gospel (and too many sermons on 'Principles' for this and that), and sometimes it is generated by an inner legalistic standard we hold to so that we can tut at the world. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Also, I'm sorry - but I would respectfully disagree with SCK - books like the Williard book can often make things worse, by getting the reader to see the Sermon on the Mount as Gospel before they see it as law. If the summary of the decalogue leaves us without hope, then the injunction to 'be ye perfect' should drive us to despair.
If you want to understand grace read Robert Capon, or see Babette's Feast.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
On the question of fear and freedom, the former restricting the latter, there is also the question of guilt. I think the idea that life should be all repentance sounds very guilty to me.
However, guilt is enormously complex, and I have spent 30 years working with people who feel guilty. One interesting aspect of it is that it often goes along with self-importance - in other words, the very guilty person requires lots of attention, and possibly, feels the lack of it.
Thus, you can end up with the paradox that the emphasis on repentance can actually lead to a kind of narcissism, as with the hypochondriac.
I'm not saying that this always happens, of course, but I do wonder about excessive scrupulosity as a species of pride.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thus, you can end up with the paradox that the emphasis on repentance can actually lead to a kind of narcissism, as with the hypochondriac.
Absolutely - but have you ever known any teaching that humanity can't convert into a form of legalism?
Though the non-narcissist hypochondriac probably needs to hear:
"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Absolutely - but have you ever known any teaching that humanity can't convert into a form of legalism?
I'm not sure this is justification for taking a particular point of view.
I'd like to come back to the point you made that "in the mean time it's a struggle". One can see why the present realisation of the fulness of grace rather than eschatological realisation, that NFI, Vineyard etc. espouse, for example, is so attractive to many. I mean, it's basically what Osteen is preaching with "your best life now".
What I am proposing is that an actual understanding of grace would not lead to an attitude that "in the mean time it's a struggle", but that it would be freeing to the point that, rather than being an additional burden that we carry, in addition to the other situations that life is throwing at us, our faith would be a joy that we live out without one eye over our shoulder. That is, the understanding that we are loved unconditionally (truly unconditionally) by the God of the universe should put everything else in perspective. I don't believe that believing that "the mean time is a struggle" is necessarily an accurate depiction of taking up our cross and following Chris, when in fact life does, for the majority of us, bring up horrible situations from time to time, be it deaths in the family, sickness, breakdown of relationships, or far worse; surely that is the cross that we bear as we trudge this journey; do we reduce grace to be merely another boulder we pile on our already weak backs, and then look on ourselves through a mixture of loathing and narcissism.
Thank you for the book recommendations, by the way. I will have a look.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
I'm not sure this is justification for taking a particular point of view.
Actually .. I meant it in the opposite sense; namely that a view is possible to twist into an extreme does not necessarily invalidate that view.
quote:
What I am proposing is that an actual understanding of grace would not lead to an attitude that "in the mean time it's a struggle"
The struggle I was referring to was the one in which we find ourself pitted against the old man within us. No one will live with a perfect realisation of grace all the time, we'll be constantly sinning in various ways (including that of pride), being called to repentance and then experiencing afresh the grace that was there all the time. I don't think there is a way around that.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
To me grace is given so that we may be transformed to be more Christ like and therefore not to continue in sin.
......................
Wishandprayer posted:
I get this completely, but has the church taken on the role of the "enforcer" rather than the "enabler"? Again, I'm thinking particularly in terms of church discipline - this is normally wrapped up in very flowery language that emphasises how much it hurts the church to see this person in their sin, but that they cannot be a "member" in this sin, or similar, (at least that's how I've seen some "ex-communications" that have been made public).
Ideally there would be a formula/model to how to balance the enforcer/enabler roles but there isn't and it is all too easy to get the balance wrong.
My prayer is always when I am dealing with pastoral matters that God will take what I do and work through it so that the person concerned is affirmed and valued even when I don't handle a situation as well as I would have liked to.
The tensions hover between wanting to allow space for the Holy Spirit to work within the person concerned understanding it is kindness that leads to repentance but also knowing when I am required to speak into the matter.
Observing that Christians in the past have been quick to judge because 'change' is not obvious to them or it may not be going to their timetable. I'd be reluctant to exclude anyone from community because of this but depending on whether the 'sin' was harming others in some context would also depend on how much freedom I would permit that said individual within the community.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thus, you can end up with the paradox that the emphasis on repentance can actually lead to a kind of narcissism, as with the hypochondriac.
Absolutely - but have you ever known any teaching that humanity can't convert into a form of legalism?
Though the non-narcissist hypochondriac probably needs to hear:
"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."
It's not legalism I was thinking of, but a kind of morbid fascination with oneself.
I think that some anti-theists argue that religion increases guilt, or even generates it; possibly, but on the other hand, I think that the various modes of confession and absolution could have a positive effect, purely from a psychological point of view. For one thing, at least one's guilt gets mentioned, when so much of it lies hidden within the psyche.
But for those morbidly guilty, probably not a good thing.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
What I am proposing is that an actual understanding of grace would not lead to an attitude that "in the mean time it's a struggle", but that it would be freeing to the point that, rather than being an additional burden that we carry, in addition to the other situations that life is throwing at us, our faith would be a joy that we live out without one eye over our shoulder.
A large part of what I believe about Grace is what I've read in Brennan Manning's books. And googling, I see that he too died a month or so ago. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
The way he puts things seems to hold two important truths together - our human fuckedupness, and God's crazy unconditional love for us despite that. Too many times I've heard people talk about God's 'unconditional' love, yet it seems to have a lot of conditions attached to it.
He got accused of preaching 'cheap grace'. This is what he said about that in his final book (his memoirs):
quote:
My message, unchanged for more than fifty years, is this: God loves you unconditionally, as you are and not as you should be, because nobody is as they should be...
Some have labeled my message as one of “cheap grace.” In my younger days, their accusations were a gauntlet thrown down, a challenge. But I’m an old man now and I don’t care. My friend Mike Yaconelli used the phrase unfair grace, and I like that, but I have come across another I would like to leave you with. I believe Mike would like it; I know I do. I found it in the writings of the Episcopal priest Robert Farrar Capon. He calls it vulgar grace...
It’s not cheap. It’s free, and as such will always be a banana peel for the orthodox foot and a fairy tale for the grown-up sensibility. Grace is sufficient even though we huff and puff with all our might to try to find something or someone it cannot cover. Grace is enough. He is enough. Jesus is enough.
Anyway, if you're checking books on Grace out, I'd suggest a great place to start would be Brennan's.
[ 20. May 2013, 16:35: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
So, my question is, is there a way of being a "grace-filled" community which does not mean accepting everyone as they are, and expecting no change at all; and does that therefore lead to Universalism? This is something I have been struggling with lately, it seems that, despite the change in rhetoric, the practice still remains that you either fall in line, or be damned. What are your experiences with this, in different church groups? ... Please forgive me if this ground has already been covered.
We're all sinners, vulnerable and being tested all the time. It's hard to know how to greet or treat someone until you realize their reputation in the community, in the parish, and their kids at school. That's my first thought on it.
If nobody else knows them, if they're a newbie like me, they better be careful not to tread on too many toes. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's very rare in the Gospels for Jesus to point out someone's sins to them. It is expected and assumed that, given sufficient self-examination, everyone will know when they have sinned. The question, presumably, is whether that self-knowledge was specific to a culture steeped in the Law, or whether it is an inherent trait. If the latter then encouraging self-examination and exploring how to deal with what is revealed should be sufficient to produce change, rather than dictating particular behaviour.
I think the primary difference is that the society of 1st-century Palestine was indeed steeped in the Law; today, in a pluralistic society, there is no such moral glue binding everyone together. There are certainly moral assumptions that are more or less held in common, but there's significant disagreement on lots of things from business practice to sex to war.
Part of the job of clergy and other church leaders is to expound clearly the church's moral stance. What the OP calls "legalism" is a danger, certainly, but so is antinomianism.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
Jesus had an opinion about human behavior in the Kingdom of David.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
So, behavior is an issue, of course, and the Law of Moses, being a good example of common civil law, is our leader as to what is Just versus what is Sin-full.
Emily
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
