|
Post by jael on Oct 12, 2010 6:29:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Oct 12, 2010 7:18:25 GMT -5
Would you mind going into more detail about this part:
"God begin to whisper then shout at us how we had Him and our worship wrong."
What were the "whispers", especially?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by livingforeternity on Oct 12, 2010 8:49:07 GMT -5
Hi whatkindofwoman,
I will be getting into how God began to draw our hearts away from this madness in my next post. I will try to summarize it within the next three. One of the biggest things was a revealing of our self-righteousness. Through certain things that happened God showed us that we were not loving people he loved. We were acting like we were better. Then our son began to rebel so badly and all of the sudden we were like those we used to "pity" and stay away from. Again one of the biggest factors was our hypocrisy. Vision Forum life-styles are so full of hypocrisy and God really put this in our face. Also, my husband had a big change of heart after two things that happened. I will be sharing these in the next few post.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 14:12:13 GMT -5
I've heard this from other parents, too-- the regret for the harshness that they thought was God's will. I'm so sorry you were duped this way, livingforeternity. I will pray for your relationship with your oldest son. Thanks for the sweet compliement to me in your post!
|
|
|
Post by amaranth on Oct 12, 2010 14:24:39 GMT -5
There's a particular point of Christian belief that's been on my mind lately. Let me just say I'm only voicing it in this thread because this installment of LivingForEternity's story illuminates the parameters of the problem rather clearly.
Many people on this forum have struggled with legalism, and walked away with the belief that trying to make yourself good enough before God is not only impossible, but a sure way to cause needless pain and grief.
I don't really know the best way to put this question, but I'll do my best. Is adhering to a strict set of religious rules wrong because we are not, and can never be good enough to do so? Or is it wrong because rules aren't the point?
I get the impression, from many of the Christians I know, that legalism is actually God's preferred method. He'd really rather us be perfect and righteous under the Law...but because we are incapable of it, it's presumptuous and insulting and stupid for us to try. That fact that we aren't "good enough", by God's standards, is a Bad Thing. Legalism, therefore, becomes a bad thing because we aren't Good Enough For It...not because it's Wrong.
The Bible verses LivingForEternity used in this post seem to back up this idea: legalism is wrong because no one is good enough; therefore, since legalism fails, we must use love instead. The implication being that legalism is actually the "right" method of living, and love, mercy, and compassion are stopgap measures until we get to a place where we are made perfect and can start living by God's rules again. (I don't know if this is correct or not...it's just the impression I've gotten.)
But is the rightness or wrongness of legalism dependent on whether or not perfection can be achieved? If perfection before God was possible for us, would it still be the wrong way to go about establishing a relationship with him? Does the Bible advocate love and mercy because there's no way we can measure up...or because, perfect or not, that's actually the better way of relating to others?
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Oct 12, 2010 15:58:04 GMT -5
There's a particular point of Christian belief that's been on my mind lately. Let me just say I'm only voicing it in this thread because this installment of LivingForEternity's story illuminates the parameters of the problem rather clearly. Many people on this forum have struggled with legalism, and walked away with the belief that trying to make yourself good enough before God is not only impossible, but a sure way to cause needless pain and grief. I don't really know the best way to put this question, but I'll do my best. Is adhering to a strict set of religious rules wrong because we are not, and can never be good enough to do so? Or is it wrong because rules aren't the point? I get the impression, from many of the Christians I know, that legalism is actually God's preferred method. He'd really rather us be perfect and righteous under the Law...but because we are incapable of it, it's presumptuous and insulting and stupid for us to try. That fact that we aren't "good enough", by God's standards, is a Bad Thing. Legalism, therefore, becomes a bad thing because we aren't Good Enough For It...not because it's Wrong. The Bible verses LivingForEternity used in this post seem to back up this idea: legalism is wrong because no one is good enough; therefore, since legalism fails, we must use love instead. The implication being that legalism is actually the "right" method of living, and love, mercy, and compassion are stopgap measures until we get to a place where we are made perfect and can start living by God's rules again. (I don't know if this is correct or not...it's just the impression I've gotten.) But is the rightness or wrongness of legalism dependent on whether or not perfection can be achieved? If perfection before God was possible for us, would it still be the wrong way to go about establishing a relationship with him? Does the Bible advocate love and mercy because there's no way we can measure up...or because, perfect or not, that's actually the better way of relating to others? I don't think it's wrong to try to live by a religious code or set of principles at all. But the problem with legalism is that the rules become the entire point, the focus of your life instead of flowing more naturally from the heart. Take the Pearls' child training methods, as an example. Is it wrong to want your kids to obey you and clean their rooms and sit properly at the table and do their homework, etc? No, of course not. Children have to be taught and socialized and generally made into people who, when they are five, other people will still like them. But what the Pearls have done is make that task, that of socializing the children, into a legalistic no man's land where the kids will never be good enough and the result is always pain and punishment and guilt. There is an entire attitude involved that has no room for mistakes, for failures, for compassion, for mercy. A child's life becomes one huge Fail. And that is, to me, the difference. When your heart changes, when your actions are flowing from a place of love and consideration and kindness then the 'rules' kind of take care of themselves. Jesus said that the entire law is contained in loving God and loving each other. Your actions will flow from that, and since we are imperfect we are pretty much guaranteed to fail, and where and when we do there is forgiveness and there is mercy. People diss Paul all the time as someone who brought the legalism to Christianity but when I read Paul I mostly see a person who admitted his failings generously as a way of letting people know that we are not perfect and when we fall short that God is sufficient for us. He left room for the expectation of human failings and admitted his own weaknesses all over the place. One of the things that I notice in the uber-strict legalistic doctrines is that they tend to pull heavily from Old Testament sources and law for their justifications and harshness. I never hear them quote Jesus, I never hear them repeat the Sermon on the Mount. It's always back to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Genesis. It would not shock me at all if some of these teachers started preaching we need to sacrifice unblemished calves upon the home altar in order to really please God and follow Him perfectly. After all, it's right there in the Old Testament. That's only half-sarcasm. Does God want us to be perfect? I don't know. Does He want us to be better than we usually are? Probably. But if it isn't inside us, if it is just a set of rules we follow and not flowing from a real change of heart, then I don't think it even matters to Him. That is the thing that really stands out to me about the legalism I usually see preached and lived around me -- that it misses the heart, and the people striving for that legalistic perfection are some of the most un-Christlike, most un-compassionate, most unmerciful people I have ever met. They seem to have entirely missed the point and it is very sad, both for them and for everyone in their sphere of influence. I'm sure Kristen can explain this better or has more to say on it so I'll leave it at that. But that is at least part of the answer I have to your question.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Oct 12, 2010 16:30:38 GMT -5
That's how I put it on someone else's blog. People who take the epistles (or even worse the Old Testament!) as a rule book are often called "legalistic" by those who see more freedom in how they live out the "love God love people" Of course if I were not a Christian, the whole thing would just be way too confusing, as Christians as a group are constantly arguing about who/what is legalistic. From the outside it wouldn't make much sense. Heck, from the inside it doesn't make much sense to me! I tell people these days I'm still working on the words of Jesus about love- Love God, love your neighbor as yourself, love your brother as I have loved you, love your enemies and do good to them. I am not even close! When I get these four simple things down pat, then I can move on to the rest of the Bible. Don't hold your breath.
|
|
|
Post by ShellyC on Oct 12, 2010 16:36:57 GMT -5
Hi whatkindofwoman, One of the biggest things was a revealing of our self-righteousness. Through certain things that happened God showed us that we were not loving people he loved. We were acting like we were better. Then our son began to rebel so badly and all of the sudden we were like those we used to "pity" and stay away from. WOW! This!! Been there, done that 100x over!
|
|
|
Post by lucrezaborgia on Oct 12, 2010 16:55:45 GMT -5
I was discussing religiously motivated abuse and brought up the Pearls as a very clear-cut (to me) example of just what that kind of abuse can look like. I got into a massive argument on another forum with a woman who uses parts of To Train A Child. My mistake was I condemned the book without reading it myself, but I know people who have been abused by this book and I've seen the Pearl's website and what they advocate is horrible! This woman took my attack on the Pearl's as a personal affront to her religion and parenting.
I'd like to read the book myself and I know a library that has it, are there differences in versions? It seems to be an older version.
I'd really like to hear of some more experiences with this book, as I've seen a very disturbing trend of the Pearl's being touted in local churches as THE experts on raising children in a "godly fashion" and these are some pretty mainstream churches.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 12, 2010 18:34:31 GMT -5
That's how I put it on someone else's blog. People who take the epistles (or even worse the Old Testament!) as a rule book are often called "legalistic" by those who see more freedom in how they live out the "love God love people" Of course if I were not a Christian, the whole thing would just be way too confusing, as Christians as a group are constantly arguing about who/what is legalistic. From the outside it wouldn't make much sense. Heck, from the inside it doesn't make much sense to me! I tell people these days I'm still working on the words of Jesus about love- Love God, love your neighbor as yourself, love your brother as I have loved you, love your enemies and do good to them. I am not even close! When I get these four simple things down pat, then I can move on to the rest of the Bible. Don't hold your breath. What's confusing is the whole idea of God making rules that are too hard to follow. My observant Jewish friends don't think the law is too hard to follow and can point to verses in the Tanakh that describe individuals as following the law and pleasing God. I think the whole Christian idea about the law being impossible to follow came about through a kind of reverse engineering. There needed to be an explanation for why God chose to send Jesus to be sacrificed and abolish the law, and the idea that the law is just too hard to follow works as an explanation, except to people who actually follow it.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Oct 12, 2010 18:43:32 GMT -5
That's how I put it on someone else's blog. People who take the epistles (or even worse the Old Testament!) as a rule book are often called "legalistic" by those who see more freedom in how they live out the "love God love people" Of course if I were not a Christian, the whole thing would just be way too confusing, as Christians as a group are constantly arguing about who/what is legalistic. From the outside it wouldn't make much sense. Heck, from the inside it doesn't make much sense to me! I tell people these days I'm still working on the words of Jesus about love- Love God, love your neighbor as yourself, love your brother as I have loved you, love your enemies and do good to them. I am not even close! When I get these four simple things down pat, then I can move on to the rest of the Bible. Don't hold your breath. What's confusing is the whole idea of God making rules that are too hard to follow. My observant Jewish friends don't think the law is too hard to follow and can point to verses in the Tanakh that describe individuals as following the law and pleasing God. I think the whole Christian idea about the law being impossible to follow came about through a kind of reverse engineering. There needed to be an explanation for why God chose to send Jesus to be sacrificed and abolish the law, and the idea that the law is just too hard to follow works as an explanation, except to people who actually follow it. I don't think it was too hard to follow; it was given, He said, because of 'the hardness of their hearts', that the new covenant came because people were ready for it now, and would apply to all people at all times and not just for a select few chosen ones. Jesus was always comparing the old law to his new more heart-related commandments and saying that the old law was actually easier to follow because it did not require the change of heart that the new covenant does. I am not saying this well but I hope it is coming across the way I mean it. I have always thought the new covenant was harder for that reason, because you couldn't just do the outward things but had to really transform inside as well. Not saying that our Jewish brethren do not do things from their hearts, but that the law was more about legalism in general. Which is why, I believe, the new legalists tend to pull from those books than from the new testament books. The old testament is a legalist's dream.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Oct 12, 2010 19:23:10 GMT -5
TTUAC was part of my patriarchal lifestyle as well, and it is, hands-down, the most difficult part of the whole thing to look back on. I hope and pray that the damage done can be mended. It seems to be. But I know things could have been SO much different, so much more, and it is heart-breaking to know that my kids, especially my oldest, spent time in such a graceless kind of home environment. I parent in a much different way, now. Still require my kids to have good manners and not be monsters in public, etc, but, as has been mentioned, that's not legalism. It's just being a good parent. There's a good healthy natural balance between learning one must obey certain rules and being allowed to be fully human. It can be done and, often, it can be a lot of fun, too! I no longer believe that a child not agreeing with a parent is "rebellion." I no longer believe that any attitude but happy is to be "trained out" of a child. I no longer believe that I should "train" my kids to not touch the walls because my husband declared that was the new law of the home. I no longer believe that a 12 month old should get a swat for making a noise during quiet time (which you are supposed to do in order to train them to sit quietly during church---nursery and sunday school being evil, of course)... UGH. Parenting the Pearls way is SO MUCH easier than parenting with love and respect for one's child. The Pearls way was simple: just swat them when they don't do exactly as you say, instantly. Doesn't take any brains to do that...or love...or respect...or compassion. Just a swat, to "train." Parenting with love and respect takes brains, effort, hugs, respect, time, discussions, being aware of the child's developmental stage, time, hugs, grace, brains, more time, etc... But...wow, is it ever worth it!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 19:26:41 GMT -5
Good points, Journey! And you also have to let them be kids and understand the difference between "I'm not doing what you said because I defy you" and "I'm not doing what you said because I don't understand, or I don't know how, or I'm not yet capable." Or even "I meant to do what you said but my mind got distracted from it, just like you get distracted sometimes." Errggh!
With regards to Amaranth's question and the resulting discussion-- I think what it comes down to is: what is law, and what is legalism?
When we're talking about law, there's a question about exactly how the law of the Old Testament applies to Christians. Most Christians would say that the ceremonial-sacrificial laws are fulfilled in Christ, so we need not do sacrifices anymore; also that certain laws were meant just for the nation of Israel, such as the holidays. What most Christians think of as the law we should follow is the moral law as contained in both the Old and New Testaments. And as Nikita said, the point of the law is supposed to be love; that all of the law is summed up in the two commandments to love God and love one another. All the rest is about how such love is to work out in practice.
I think that when Christians and Jews talk about "keeping the law," they mean it in two different ways. From what I have been able to ascertain, most Jewish people have an understanding of the law which includes safety nets for when it is not practiced perfectly. The law for them includes the Day of Atonement, which is mostly observed now as a day to apologize and make restitution to one another for wrongs committed during the year. Jewish people who are doing their best to keep the law, and also mess up and then follow the rabbinical teachings about apology and restitution, feel that they are keeping the law. And that is what was usually meant by "keeping the law" as spoken of in their Scriptures as well.
What a Christian means by "keeping the law" means keeping the moral law to God's standard of perfection. Never messing up. Never being selfish or unloving or uncharitable. Never neglecting something that's a moral obligation. It is in this sense, not the Jewish sense, that they say no one can keep the whole law. The Christian then turns to the atonement of Christ rather than to the Jewish atonement laws, to make up for mistakes.
But what legalism is, is focusing on the outward structure of the commandments, rather than the love for God and others that they're supposed to be all about. Legalism often also means getting even stricter with the commandments than the Scriptures actually say. When Jesus told the Pharisees, "you tithe mint, dill and cumin, but neglect justice and mercy and faith" (Matt 23:23), that's what he was talking about. The law does not actually command tithing the smallest of herbs. Israel was commanded to tithe from "your grain, your new wine and oil, and the firstlings of your flocks and herds." Deut. 14:23. The Pharisees were actually adding additional things to the tithe, in order to make extra sure they were doing it right. And they were so focused on tithing better than everyone else, that they were ignoring the whole point of the law, which was justice, faith and mercy.
When Christians say we can't keep the whole law, so we need to have mercy on one another-- they aren't talking about legalism. And of course, since the essence of the law is love, and love includes mercy, what they really mean is that being legalistic actually prevents them from keeping the true law even as well as they could keep it, if they weren't focused on the external practices and on making the requirements even harder than necessary.
But I don't think a loving God truly expects us to meet perfection any more than we expect our kids to.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Oct 12, 2010 19:40:59 GMT -5
See? I told you Kristen could explain this better than I did.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 19:44:02 GMT -5
Aww, thanks, Nikita.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 12, 2010 20:04:55 GMT -5
Yeah, I know that Christians have a different idea of "keeping the law" than Jews do. That was the point of my post.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 20:33:41 GMT -5
Then I'm confused, Coleslaw. Part of what you said was,
What I said was a completely different explanation than the one you just gave above. What I said that is is possible to say one "follows the law" if they consider the safety-net features for when they don''t keep it, as part of the law itself. But this still means that no one actually keeps the law -- not without utilizing these safety nets.
In any event, Christians say Jesus fulfilled the law, not that he abolished it.
But if all you meant was that Christians have a different idea of keeping the law than Jews do, them I'm not sure what you were getting at. Can you explain further?
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 12, 2010 21:09:34 GMT -5
Jews, not Christians, are the authorities on whether the safety nets are part of the law or not. They are the ones to whom the law was given, they are the ones who treasure it, they are the ones who bother keeping it, even if not to your satisfaction, and they've been at it for longer than Christians have.
As for why I posted what I did, humbletiger posted "Of course if I were not a Christian, the whole thing would just be way too confusing, as Christians as a group are constantly arguing about who/what is legalistic. From the outside it wouldn't make much sense" and I was agreeing with her about that and pointing out what doesn't make sense to me - the way Christians view the law. I also gave my explanation for why that is the case. I know you don't agree with my explanation, but you are also looking at it from a Christian point of view, which means you hold the Christian view of the law to be the correct one. Me, I'm looking at it the way you might look at a dispute between Buddhists and Hindus about a point of Buddhist law.
|
|
|
Post by lucrezaborgia on Oct 12, 2010 21:49:26 GMT -5
I've spent many years living among Orthodox Jews. There is a long oral tradition concerning ways to get around the laws and make them practical to modern life. Case in point: The eruv.
An eruv is a symbolic fence that allows Jews to get around the Sabbath prohibition of carrying objects outside the home. Otherwise you could not carry your children or keys or other objects on the Sabbath. In old days, it had to be an actual fence or wall. These days, it can be a string that is hung on poles. The entire city of Miami Beach is an eruv through this method of strings on poles. Sometimes, streets are used as symbolic boundaries.
You can't "work" on the Sabbath. That means pushing a button for the elevator, but if the elevator just happens to be moving from floor to floor and you get on it, it's not "work." Ovens are altered to not have a light come on automatically as well as over-riding certain settings so food can be kept warm for longer lengths of time as you are not allowed to cook on the Sabbath.
You can't "light a candle" so that means no flipping switches, but if you leave the lights on all night and day, that's not going against the Sabbath.
Do Orthodox Jews live with lots of laws? Yes, but they are not hard and fast laws and things can come up for interpretation via Rabbinical review. The point of the laws is to worship god, but not to the point that they become overly burdensome.
Go to Miami Beach on a Friday night and you will see whole families and groups of friends walking around at all hours of the night, just talking and enjoying the night breeze. Nothing beats a good Jewish deli or a really good Rosh Shoshana dinner. Even better about living among Orthodox Jews: They are unfailingly polite, don't try to lecture you on your lifestyle, are more than happy to discuss their beliefs, and you don't get that early Sunday morning knock from someone trying to convert you to Mormonism.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 22:01:12 GMT -5
Ok, Coleslaw-- but isn't it true that most Jews would say that they keep the law because they are God's people, not the other way around? In other words, they were chosen first, and then given this way to live. They were not given this way to live in order that they might prove themselves worthy to be chosen.
For Jews, just as for Christians, what it really boils down to is the grace and mercy of God, not how well they keep the law. That's why the safety nets are there in the first place, isn't it?
The main difference is that after the earliest days of Christianity, most Christians were Gentile converts. Jews who grow up following the law are not going to find it nearly so burdensome as Gentiles, to whom the cultural aspects of it are foreign restrictions. Its sort of the same as I feel about certain Japanese foods. Given a hypothetical law against eating sea urchins, I would say, "No problem. Sea urchins are not something I ever considered eating anyway." But a Japanese person might say, "No more sea urchins! But they're a delicacy-- my favorite treat!"
This would partially account for a different perception between Jews and Gentiles about how hard the law is to follow.
Another reason for the difference, I think, boils down to the teachings of Jesus himself. As Nikita said earlier, Jesus raised the standard of keeping the law to focus more on internal attitudes, which are much harder to control than outward behavior. When the law is looked at as Jesus taught, keeping it becomes much harder. Jesus taught his followers to look at our behavior in the light of God's holiness, rather than simply whether they met the external criteria of behavior of the law.
So no, I don't think there was a sort of retroactive justification after the fact, that Jesus came because the law was too hard to follow. Jesus came and himself set a standard for following the law that was too hard. But neither Judaism nor Christianity is ultimately about obtaining the favor of God by following law. The favor is freely given first.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Oct 12, 2010 23:10:39 GMT -5
Coleslaw -
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you weren't asking us to explain it so much as commenting on it from a Jewish perspective. I didn't realize you were Jewish. I think we were just explaining the Christian perspective on it because we two are a) Christians, and b) posting on a website where we are mostly analyzing these doctrinal/practical issues over against some extremely harsh Christian teachings. It was a natural progression for us and just our part of the greater discussion. I know I am not insisting that someone else, especially one who isn't even the same faith, fall into line with my understanding of the problem. I was stating what my understanding of the problem is from my background.
I think it would be great if you added your own understanding and perspective to the question as it is a side of it that we can only see from the outside just as you may see ours. Personally I find the whole thing fascinating so the more points of view the better.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 12, 2010 23:49:10 GMT -5
I'm not Jewish. I was brought up as a Methodist, actually. I had a number of good friends who were Jewish when I was growing up. One of them was the daughter of a rabbi and her family corrected many of the erroneous bits of information about Judaism I learned in Sunday School. That gave me an appreciation of learning about a religion from the people who practice it and not from members of another religion, including my own.
I think we did (or still do) have a person who posts here who is Jewish, but I don't remember who it is and I may be wrong about that.
Oh, and KR, "reverse engineering" does not mean "retroactive justification". What I was suggesting is that Christians start with their beliefs about who Jesus is and from there use reverse engineering to understand the law, which leads to a much different view of the law from the Jewish view.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 13, 2010 0:22:08 GMT -5
Coleslaw-- ok, thanks for clarifying. I agree with you there, now I understand better what you're saying. I understood you were not Jewish yourself-- otherwise I would not have discussed these ideas without deferring to a Jewish person's understanding of them. But I think you've made some very good points. (I have reformed and orthodox Jews in my family, btw
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Oct 14, 2010 13:24:51 GMT -5
This verse grabbed my attention.
You have been severed from Christ those of you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:4
My first honest reaction was that verse means that Christians shouldn't strive to take over a government and force their laws on the others around them.
When I looked up the verse in my Oxford Study Edition of The New English Bible I wound up confused, because Paul seems to be saying that if you are circumcised you must keep the whole covenant...
Color me confused.
|
|
|
Post by livingforeternity on Oct 14, 2010 19:49:22 GMT -5
I have never used an Oxford Study Bible, but my Nelson Study and also McArthur Study Bible indicates that these verses are talking most specifically about circumcision. The Jewish converts were trying to get the Gentile converts to be circumcised. They said that this outward symbol would indicate the Gentiles had accepted the law. However, circumcision was part of the old covenant. Jesus paid a huge price for the new covenant of grace and Paul didn't want people trying to secure divine favor by a ritual. We must understand that there is nothing we can do in and of ourselves to save ourselves. It is a gift of God. In fact he goes on to say in verse 12 he wished those trying to impress legalism on the Gentile converts would castrate themselves. Apparently Paul felt very strongly about legalism. Again these verses indicate wanting to depend on legal works rather than God's grace to obtain salvation. Hope this helps.
|
|