Let me start out by saying that I welcome opinions by any and all, whether pro- or con-. If someone comments—unless, of course, their language is not conducive—I'll allow it to stay attached to the post. I'd also like to say that there is no one out there of whom I can't learn. I am a student, therefore always seeking knowledge. I am also not so convinced of my understanding and intelligence that I am beyond being incorrect. I'm wrong a lot, but that's why I keep studying, and discussing, and questioning… I'm seeking knowledge and understanding.
We make a grave mistake when we assume that we know everything about any one subject. We also make a mistake when we assume that the people we've been listening to are the final authority on any subject. We are all human, therefore fallible. We will all misunderstand, misinterpret, misinform, misguide… you get the picture? The practice of questions and discussion is not to promote ire between factions of any group or creed, but rather to foster individual and corporate growth among and between us all.
When you're scared of a different opinion then you're unsure of your own.
We'd all learn a valuable lesson if we took on John's credo: I must decrease so that He may increase. We cannot magnify nor elevate GOD to His rightful place in our lives until we are willing to debase ourselves and our philosophies. None of us have arrived, we're all carnal, none of us have done anything of any significance; yet… for some reason, GOD still chooses to use us. But, He will not use us if we glorify ourselves.
Listening to our own headlines, believing our own press, drinking our own Kool-Aid… you call it whatever you want, the practice will destroy us.
I want you to feel safe in your identity as you interact with me. So, I'm going to bare my soul in the hopes that you will see that the water's fine, and be willing to jump in.
Traditions
I believe that traditions of men are exactly that. While there is biblical precedent for the teaching of traditions, there is never license given to morph these traditions into Doctrine. Because of this I believe that organizational standards are traditions. The Text does not lay out a set of minimums by which we are to live, therefore neither will I; I chose, rather to live in the maximum of GOD's Illumination.
All this being said, there are traditions to which I live and teach to my family. While I believe that I can demonstrate the biblical principle of each of these traditions, I do not assume that this gives me the right nor responsibility to bring you or anyone else subject to the practice of my family. Call me crazy, but I expect the same courtesy from everyone else. For example, I'll be glad to remove my wedding ring when I minister to your congregation if you're willing to put one on when you minister to mine.
One final thought on the subject of traditions, I don't believe that traditions that have been established in our lifetimes have the same importance and spiritual significance of those that Paul and the rest of the Apostles taught. Nor do I believe that just because GOD called me to be a teacher that my opinions or interpretations are necessarily GOD-breathed. I have made mistakes before, and will most likely again, therefore I leave GOD a wide berth in establishing doctrine and providing Illumination. Anyone who thinks that their teachings or sermonizings are on a level playing field with those of the Apostles thinks far too highly of themselves.
Religion
In my opinion, religion is the greatest weapon in our enemy's arsenal. Religion convinces people that their religious efforts are efforts toward GOD. This couldn't be farther from Truth. Religion in all of its flavors is humanistic at best. Whether we call them denominations, organizations, fellowships… a rose by any other name is still a rose, and all of these are but nicknames for religion.
Religion separates man from GOD, while relationship reunites GOD with man.
Because of my belief about religion I tend to shy away from the status quo. I'm not attempting to be relevant or relative. I'm neither emerging nor emergent. I'm neither liberal nor conservative. Please don't bulk me into any of these groups as I don't fit comfortably into any of them. I'm trying to be a disciple of Jesus, nothing else.
If your views on any subject are a result of your denomination, your circle of friends or the collective Kool-Aid jug at which you gather from time to time, your views aren't your own, you're being a parrot. Well, I refuse to be a bird-brain for anyone. I do my best to allow GOD to shape my opinions and views in His direction.
My view and understanding of the origin and purpose of religion throughout human history has also made me very intolerable of sacred cows and envelopes. In my opinion, sacred cows should not only be tipped, they should be shoved over a cliff. As to envelopes, if they're there, I'm going to push them (consider it a type of OCD).
---------------
All this being said, I love a good debate, and I don't always have to win. I also love a good discussion. So, relax a bit. Take off your mask of religiosity. Be confident in your position and leave us your name. Don't hide behind anonymity, be true to yourself.
But most of all, learn to live clear.
Monte, you hit the nail on the head. Identity or "id" (Greek), is the ego or superego that seeks satisfaction through pleasure in "self" from being recognized.
ReplyDeletePride, lying, lust, adultery, fornication, murder, vanity, drunkenness, traditions, etc all these things are about "self". Seeking after Jesus is learning to let go of "self" and trust in Him rather than ourselves. Wow, faith in God requires release of "self" - concept.
Monte, I love your posts because they seem honest and sincere, but humble.
ReplyDeleteA point I would like to make:
Traditions of men are fine if they are taught as such - they are not salvific. To do contrary is adding to the Word of God as if it isn't good enough. The Word of God is perfect and it speaks enough for itself. The Word of God permeates to the heart of the matter - which is the heart - that's deep...
"All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirits (the thoughts and intents of the heart)" (Prov. 16:2 AMP).
Personal convictions are are highly encouraged, but to force your personal convictions on others is like saying the Bible is not good enough... You can improve it.
I will borrow an excellent point from someone else:
People who follow the Law of God in a way which does not see it adding to the meritorious work of Jesus Christ and His cross are not Legalists. Legalists, by definition, would be saying that the Law helps us to gain salvation. This was the problem with the Judiaizers. They thought that by keeping the Law, plus believing in the work of Christ, made a person saved. In Galatians 5:3, Paul says, "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by Law; you have fallen from grace." There were some who thought that being circumcised helped in salvation. But Paul says that the moment you add anything to the work of Christ, then you have fallen from grace. Christ's work alone justifies the ungodly (Gal. 2:16; 3:11-13, 24; 6:13-14).
Having Godly personal convictions is awesome! Just don't judge others that don't share your personal convictions.
Allowing what God has disallowed is heaping damnation upon yourself. On the converse, disallowing what God allows - to anyone else but yourself - is legalism and is adding to His Word. It also can be idolatrous because you are making yourself an authority above and beyond God's Word if you preach it as a requirement to others. Jesus already did it all to save us, we have to just obey Him and His Word. Nothing more, nothing less.
Religion separates relationships among people calling themselves Christians.
ReplyDelete@Aaron: thanks for the kudos.
ReplyDelete[i can't believe i'm doing this after this post, but now i'll respond to the Anonymous, ha]
@Anonymous 1: i concur, and this is how i live my life.
@Anonymous 2: huh?
I enjoyed reading this post. I was steered to it by Paul Pavolni. I wanted to comment with a little food for thought.
ReplyDeleteRegarding this statement: "While there is biblical precedent for the teaching of traditions, there is never license given to morph these traditions into Doctrine"
That seems to fail to take into account that the word doctrine means teaching. If you see biblical precedent for the _teaching_ of traditions, then you see biblical precedent for traditions in (as part of) _doctrine_ (teaching). The question is not (or rather should not be) whether something is tradition versus doctrine, but rather an analysis of both what is practiced (tradition) and taught (doctrine). There are good traditions and bad ones. There are sound doctrines and unsound doctrines.
With regard to the concept illustrated by the wedding ring example:
We could describe this concept as all believers universally expecting that others comply with "our" traditions (practices) while on "our" court, and us being willing to do the same while on their court.
The problem with this concept is readily evident as soon as them complying with our practice is (to them) sin, and as soon our complying with theirs is (to us) sin.
Therein lies support for the biblical doctrine in which the more liberal (if he wishes to preserve unity, fellowship, and have any influence) is to be willing to comply with the stricter (or more conservative) convictions while the reverse cannot be asked or expected.
If you invite a brother to preach for you, and his conviction is that it is a sin for him to wear a wedding band, you cannot ask him to wear one while he is with you, without asking him to sin.
See 1 Corinthians 8:13. Regarding that verse, the Believers Study Bible commentary has the following:
"Often the believer is faced with a choice about which nothing has been explicitly stated in the Bible. The question facing the Corinthian Christians had to do with the availability of meat which had been sacrificed to idols. Should a Christian eat such meat? Paul views idols as "nothing" (v. 4). Nevertheless, the Christian has other considerations. In this verse, Paul provides a general guideline for a Christian's ethical decision making and supplements this with two additional tests in ch. 10: (1) Will a given action cause a brother to stumble (v. 13)? (2) Will the action be edifying to the disciple himself (10:23)? (3) Will such action glorify God (10:31)? These simple tests provide a foundation for decision making which, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will faithfully direct the earnest Christian."
If we (my family) were to visit a church where pants are not considered as 'that which pertains to a man' then we could not 'step down' to their level (or 'comply') while on their court, because to us that would be sin. By contrast, for them to temporarily step up to our conviction would not be a sin for them. They might be annoyed, chafed, or bothered in their flesh, but not wounded in faith or conscience.
This strength of being willing to "morph" (I'll borrow the word) away from one's own more liberal practices into compliance with stricter convictions is an essential strength for anyone who hopes to serve in leadership.
In case this posting does not readily reveal my name, I'm Doug Joseph. I pastor a United Pentecostal Church in Clarksburg, WV.
PS: Tech matter: I am using the latest version of Firefox. Everything I view on your site displays in just a tiny space; a wide, thin strip, that makes it hard to follow. I can send you a screen shot if you like.
PPS: As soon as I tried to post this comment, the attempt failed, and the refreshed screen no longer showed everything in a thin strip. Interesting. Your site now looks totally proper. I will now try again to post. If you see this, obviously I had success.
One more thought, about religion.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way that there are both good and bad traditions, and both sound and unsound teachings, there is also both good and bad religion.
(James 1:27 NIV) Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Certainly there are false religions that do all the bad things you mentioned. However, your article seems to bash all religion as a whole, without acknowledging that there is a proper and true religion. The above verse proves the existence of the true.
@Anonymous 1: (Great post) Lets breakdown the personal conviction just a bit. For instance if you say you do not use the Internet because you have a problem with pornography, that is a personal conviction. Not using the Internet is something you are struggling with and choose to avoid to stay out of trouble. If you say you can't wear sleeves below your elbow because you feel condemnation I think we enter into another area.
ReplyDeleteHere are my thoughts/questions: Why would we feel condemnation for sleeves above the elbow and do we feel by having longer sleeves we are able to save ourselves more than if we had shorter sleeves?
To break it down further we are saying, “Yes Jesus I know you don’t care about my sleeve length, but I think you will love me more if I have longer sleeves, and I think I am more saved this way”. I think this type of thinking comes with a fundamental flaw and the lack faith in Christ’s grace, love and what salvation is about. In my opinion this falls more on the side of works than a personal conviction. Here one is trying to justify themselves with the physical over the spiritual and essential be their own God and provide their own means of salvation. The focus becomes what "self" can do, rather than what God can do.
P.S. This is more of an introspective look, rather than a criticism.
Doug: interesting look at the conversation, but I think your view point, while mostly balanced, is a bit one sided in perspective leaning towards those who advocate no wedding rings. I think we are neglecting how most people (unbelievers and believers) in our culture perceive married people who don't wear a ring. Typically the practice of no ring for married folks is viewed as questionable and their intentions are in question. Some people I know would take great offense to having to remove their Wedding ring.
ReplyDeleteP.S. just a different perspective, not saying I don't understand your POV.
@Doug: thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. i love interaction with people of all thoughts.
ReplyDeletefirst, i'm not sure why Firefox is skewing the layout, but i will look into it. thanks for the heads-up.
I want to address each of your comments one-at-a-time so i don't miss anything that you've said.
yes, a doctrine is a teaching, but GOD never gave mankind the responsibility nor license to establish His Doctrine. when we begin to intertwine our doctrines with His Doctrine we have the issue of determining what is "sound" or "not sound" doctrine. it would seem to me that if we'd stop trying to do GOD's job it would be a lot easier to do our job.
and yes, there are good traditions and bad one (something i mentioned in my post), but whether good nor bad, a tradition of men is still that. it cannot be touted as biblical Doctrine. my issue is not with traditions in and of themselves, my issue is with traditions being dressed up as GOD-breathed when they're not. this is adding to the Text, and just as wrong as taking away from the Text.
(continued...)
(continued...)
ReplyDeletein your response about wedding rings you make the assumption that if i prefer the wearing of wedding rings then i am more liberal than someone who prefers the not wearing of the same. this assumption proves my point about traditions. for example, my father (an awesome man of GOD) wholeheartedly believes that the wearing of wedding rings is wrong, and uses Text to back his assertion. i, on the other hand, wholeheartedly believe that the wearing of wedding rings is vital and integral to representing the sanctity of my commitment to my wife, and i use Text to back my assertion. neither of us are the more liberal or conservative in this issue, just our traditions are different. i would be wrong to saddle my father with the burden of my tradition, just as he would be wrong to saddle me with his.
i'm glad that you used 1 Corinthians 8 to support your comment, because it is the very basis for my traditions not crossing anyone else, and vice versa. I am more than willing to become all things to all men so that i might save some. but we all have to admit that this courtesy should and must go both ways; not in true Doctrinal issues (as those are established by GOD), but in traditions.
in your next example you again used the moniker liberal as though a liberal individual's convictions are less than those of conservatives. i'm sorry, but i just cannot believe this. liberality or conservatism is relative. for example, my brother is the "new liberal" in the fellowship he's a member of because he utilizes video cameras. does this make his use of video equipment wrong? no, simply his establishing a different tradition than someone else. (and for the record, just in case there's anyone who wants to start a fight, i'm not capping on my brother).
the monikers liberal and conservative are thrown around as though they are biblical, they're not. this labeling has caused great divides in the Apostolic Movement. the primary issue i have with both, is that they're both wrong. and, they're both right. if both sides could simply accept the fact that we don't all have to agree on our traditions, then we could get back to work of GOD.
i honestly believe that GOD is wanting us to strip away our pretense at righteousness and come before He and the world whom we are commissioned to reach and say, don't look at me, look at Jesus. He didn't call us to be liberal nor conservative, He called us to make disciples by teaching His yoke (Doctrine) not ours.
as to religion, GOD never established a religion, man did. religion is man's attempt to connect with GOD, but GOD doesn't require mankind to interact with Him religiously, He prefers a daily relationship (see the Garden for Textual precedent). ironically, the word that James used in your Textual reference is θρησκεία [theskeia], which—while it is derived from threskos referring to worship GOD—it refers specifically to external and ceremonial worship. by the context James is teaching that if we are going to act like we're connecting with GOD by claiming that we're religious, that we should imitate Jesus by acting as He did. basically put our money where our mouth is.
James' references to religion, nor Paul's several references make religion good. check the references, you'll see that in their usage there's always a negative connotation to the practice.
thank you again for taking the time to read and comment on my blog. i've enjoyed the discourse, and hope that there will be more. feel free to email me at myoung@livingclear.net if that's easier.
m
Time for a little Romans 14. The "weak believers" weren't grayed hair saints worried about "compromisers," they were new believers who didn't have the same judgement with meat. It should be known that even still, Paul ate meat from idols.
ReplyDeleteRomans 14: don't cause your brother to stumble, and stumbling brother, don't cast your convictions on your brother. Nothing clear cut here, good practice and principle. Some use "weaker brother" principle to demand everyone lives according to their own unbiblical traditions (that are only traditions because of poor hermeneutic to begin with).
@Sara: well said.
ReplyDeleteAaron and Monte:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the replies!
Please, I invite you to take this at face value. I make no assumptions about anyone’s convictions, nor am I trying to prefer either above the other. I am speaking about principles that transcend any one issue. Remove “wedding rings” from the equation, and consider there are a thousand other issues that could be substituted.
Monte: In my use of the word “liberal” I try to mean it in a literal, scholarly way (as in, that which pertains to liberty) not as a moniker to describe this or that camp. Likewise in my use of the term “conservative” I am meaning it in the dictionary sense, not as a label for this or that camp. If some people misuse words it does not mean we should abandon use of those words. :-)
“The proper response to misuse is not disuse.” --T.F. Tenney, heard by my own ears, many years ago.
(PS: I was the one getting busted by him saying it. I was only a kid at the time, but I had it coming. Now back to the topic....)
I am simply pointing out that to expect someone else to comply with my liberties may indeed be asking them to do something that wounds their conscience and which could thus be detrimental to their faith. Paul taught that the guiding principle of not causing a brother to stumble trumps (or ought to) one’s own personal liberties. Just saying. :-)
In one’s own mind, quite often the “other guy” is the liberal (the one taking liberties) and... (you get the idea). The one who preaches the importance of wearing x may hold himself to be the conservative, while conversely, the one who preaches the importance of _NOT_ wearing x may also hold himself to be the conservative.
Regardless, if either one sincerely believes that he would be sinning to comply with the other guy’s conviction, that’s going to make it very difficult for them to have fellowship, unless someone can conjure some acceptance and tolerance. Note that it is quite possible that both could feel they would be sinning to cross over to the other’s conviction.
In regard to this type of interaction, the apostle Paul described someone who is “weak” in faith and issued this exhortation:
“Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters” (Romans 14:1 NIV).
That whole chapter (14) of Romans is good to read about this stuff.
In disputable matters we have a duty to make our own liberties a lower priority than our brother’s salvation, and to call upon all the mature among us to do the same.
We are all trying to balance our own liberties with the command to be holy and with the need to not cause a brother to stumble... These matters are kinda the “$64K question”, and the essence of a true Christian can be seen in how these matters are handled.
The reason I am pointing out the “weak in faith” part of what Paul wrote, is because if you have a “weak” and a “strong” then you don’t have two equals and there is no need to imagine any fictitious “two way street.” When one is weak and the other is strong, the strong makes the journey to the weak, and does not demand it to happen the other way around, in some kind of reciprocation.
PS: I wear a wedding ring but I am willing to remove it if a situation requires it. If I were ever to invite someone to preach who had a conviction against wearing one, I would not ask him to.
Another PS: I accidentally posted this while logged on under another email address. I deleted that and reposted under this one. BTW the "skinny wide" screen issue never showed again.
@Doug: the reason i'm suggesting that we drop the labels is two-fold. first, they're not biblical. second, they are relative, thus in constant flux making it impossible to properly apply them. we'd be better off simply referring to people's personal convictions as just that.
ReplyDeleteyou're correct when you say that we can't expect other people to comply with our personal liberties, but we should also not expect others to comply with our personal convictions. sure i'll prefer my brother (meant in general sense, no as in my family), but my brother should also prefer me. it is a two-way street, whether we like it or not.
the reason that this concept worked in the 1st Century even though we have so much difficulty with the practice is the fact that—as a general rule—we've moved away from the common unity in which the 1st Century Community lived. they truly were submitted one to another. they truly did confess their faults one to another. thus, their personal differences became aspects of the collective tapestry rather than polar positions.
you're also correct that Romans 14 sheds tremendous light on this subject. the problem is, the polarized Apostolic Movement has stopped reading the Text and has begun reading their own manuals and position papers, thinking that they are GOD-breathed. if we'd return—collectively—to the Text with a true, honest desire to absorb His Character and Likeness, we'd see exactly how GOD intends for us all to live.
all this being said, who determines what is a lower stand or liberty? who determines that one stand is higher or stronger? this is in the inherent problem with deifying our personal traditions, convictions, preferences. these are personal and individual between an individual and GOD. these are not collective, thus require common unity for interaction among the Body. it is asinine to declare or assume that our denominational statutes are GOD-breathed and that anyone choosing not to adhere to them is "weaker" or "liberal" or otherwise. this is assuming that we have the right and/or responsibility to establish Doctrine, and we don't.
my usage of the wedding ring issue was to demonstrate the absurdity of polar positioning. there's no way in GOD's green goodness that i would ever require a visiting minister to don a wedding ring. that's just common courtesy. but to assume that my belief of the necessity of wearing a wedding ring is less than the belief against the wearing of the same is just plain wrong. thus demonstrating the major problem with the teaching of traditions and personal preferences as Doctrine. GOD doesn't require nor expect collective adherence to all our personal dedications because He understands that this practice is an exercise in futility. we need to learn from His example.
thanks again for the discussion. it's always fun to sharpen the iron.
Great discussion, which seems to come down to tolerance & respect of each traditions and standards. It really is a 2-way street and its easy for either side to see only 1 POV.
ReplyDeleteStill using the ring example here are some thoughts:
1) If I wear a ring, am I causing my brother who does not wear one to sin or am I just offending him when I visit his church? Then why is he offended and why does he not tolerate my tradition?
2) Likewise if my brother does not wear a ring do I become offended that he isn't wearing one when he visits my church, should I not tolerate his tradition?
Whether or not I take off my ring in his church or he puts one one for my church, I still wear one and he doesn't, so it doesn't really make a difference; the heart is the same.