Someone please help me understand the “church standards” thing. Can you give examples of requiring something, yet it not bein legalistic?
Trying to understand that frame of reference
TIA
Trying to understand that frame of reference
TIA
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Anything 'Like' IFB?
- Thread starter Wally
- Start date
It kind of depends on what you mean by ‘required’ I guess.
I would describe it as being at different ‘levels’. Starting at the top 'Salvation related -> Biblical Doctrine -> Standards'. I would generally look at ‘Salvation related’ as the only truly ‘required’; trusting Christ as your savior. Then there is Biblical Doctrine; these things are based on clarity of teaching in the Bible. Primarily having been ‘established in the mouth of two or more witnesses’ (found in more than one passage) i.e.- Two Church Ordinances: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. You would preach and teach those as ‘absolutes’ from God. Not for salvation but direct commands to be done and taken seriously and in order to be ‘right standing’ and communion with God. Then ‘standards’ would be Biblically 'based' things that the local body has decided on (generally Pastor initiated).
Wearing a button shirt and tie whenever you are at the pulpit would be an example of a ‘standard’. The Biblical ‘principle’ is bringing your best to God, being separate from the world, etc. The idea being, if I stand at the pulpit in a shirt and tie, the congregation is likely to, at least, wear decent blue jeans and a clean shirt. If I stand at the pulpit in jeans and a t-shirt the congregation will be in shorts and flip flops. Is that problem? No, but it is a standard that the local body can, and does, set. Either one of those is a standard that was set and you’re just as likely to have people walk out, offended, in either one. No one is saying you have to do that for your salvation, you don’t even have to do that to preach or teach…just to stand at the pulpit in this Church.
What I’m saying is that some things that would be fine as ‘standards’ in the Church have been elevated to Biblical Doctrine without meeting the appropriate criteria. Example: Gambling. There is Biblical Doctrine that can apply; the love of money, trusting in the Lord to provide, etc., but where does the guy that has a poker game in his basement fall? What about charity raffles? Well, I’m not relying on that to pay my bills and have no expectation of riches, so where is the doctrine that says my doing those things will take me out of a right standing with God? The only passage I’ve ever heard to back this up is, ironically, HALF of Romans 14:23 “…for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (sigh). I say ironically because the clear teaching of Romans 14 is Christian liberty. Which, if they understood that chapter at all, would prevent them from using that verse out sheer embarrassment. But, hey, go ahead and preach it. Tell us about the lives you know that were ruined by gambling, what it often leads to, the debauchery typically associated with it…just STOP telling me God’s Word forbids it in every possible form.
Back in the day, all conservative churches were like this. CCM did not exist. All Biblical churches were against alcoholic beverages. Pastors and evangelists regularly preached against worldly entertainment such as movies. Before movies, preachers spoke against the theater. Famous missionary Hudson Taylor was even against reading novels, and forbade them when he took his first group of CIM missionaries to China.
Now I agree that these prohibitions do not bring revival, but it is necessary for the believer to "love not the world" as the Apostle John put it.
When did all of this change? Historically, when New Evangelicalism began in the 1950's, the New Evangelicals (Billy Graham and his fellow travelers) opposed the personal standards, called "personal separation," of the fundamentalists. The classic work against such standards is The Grace Awakening, by Chuck Swindoll. However, no revival occurred with the abandonment of personal standards. In fact, the evangelical world is worse off than ever.
That book by Chuck Swindoll though opened my eyes to what living by grace really means!
Antinomianism and grace are not synonymous.
I did not take from himn that he was teaching that cheap and easy grace, but hard! against legalism
I admit it's been a long time since I read it, but my impression of it was, "All rules are legalism." That's ridiculous. Every church has rules called their "constitution."
It seems to me like there is a delicate balance between Christian liberty and compromise. It isn’t really that there’s a thin gray line or something…it’s more that everyone picks a side of a, mostly, clearly marked line and then goes way too far just show the other side of the line which side they are on. It’s okay to have standards and NOT claim they are Biblical Doctrine. It’s okay to have Christian liberty without flaunting it, or taking ‘liberties’ with your liberty.
How about a church constitution? Every church has one, and they all require things. Here is a theological definition of legalism: "Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., p. 990). Simply having standards does not equal legalism. Legalism occurs if one thinks those standards make him righteous before God.
I have standards and so do you. My standards are not to make me righteous, but (1) to keep me out of temptation, and (2) to avoid offending others or causing them to stumble. What are yours for?
I think Chuck was speaking out against making our preferences and convictions as rules to apply towards all, as why can be against all alcohol, but don;t despise a brother who orders wine for dinner!
He would really see say KJVO as being legalism!
I think the crossing over line is when someone tells us that we must do as they do to stay right with God, but that area falls under our Christian Liberty!
The problem is that "Christian liberty" quite often crosses over into "license." A good theological position on personal separation is that as we draw closer to God, the need for secular pleasures decreases. If someone says, "I have the freedom to watch R rated movies," that "freedom" has a good chance of hurting his Christian testimony or distancing him from a thrice holy God. If on the other hand one seeks with all of his heart to "draw nigh to God," such secular and questionable pleasures will fall away naturally.
Allow me to use an example -
I will not recognize a child to call me by my first name
If they do so, I will infomr them that my name is Mr. Salty, or Pastor Salty, and for my
nephews and niceses - Uncle Salty.. ect. Often kids will call my wife Miss Julie.
Well, I have a friend that would not allow his child to do so- he insisted that
the child call my wife Mrs. Salty. Though I think he goes too far - I respect his decision
and do not insist on Miss Julie.
Normally, I seen nothing wrong in having high standards.!
BTW - I refuse to use the PC dumb term of "Ms"
and one other thing - I remember back around 1970 or so, a big issue in letters to the editior of the
Baptist Bulletin (GARBC) was if it were proper for pastors to wear colored shirts and louder ties
or if they should stick with a white shirt and black tie!
I will not recognize a child to call me by my first name
If they do so, I will infomr them that my name is Mr. Salty, or Pastor Salty, and for my
nephews and niceses - Uncle Salty.. ect. Often kids will call my wife Miss Julie.
Well, I have a friend that would not allow his child to do so- he insisted that
the child call my wife Mrs. Salty. Though I think he goes too far - I respect his decision
and do not insist on Miss Julie.
Normally, I seen nothing wrong in having high standards.!
BTW - I refuse to use the PC dumb term of "Ms"
and one other thing - I remember back around 1970 or so, a big issue in letters to the editior of the
Baptist Bulletin (GARBC) was if it were proper for pastors to wear colored shirts and louder ties
or if they should stick with a white shirt and black tie!
I do understand your position here, but still think Chuck was addressing the larger issue of legalism, as in we would be judging others saved due to their type of music, bibles, what they choose to eat or drink etc!
Not true at all. Independent is just that, Independent, especially from the SBC.
and as my DOM likes to say - SBC churches are more independent than Independent Baptists!
What does he mean by that?