In Defense of Being Legalistic

[2xx1xy1JD]

This article got me thinking: blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-are-there-so-many-jewish-lawyers-devarim-covenant-conversation-5775-on-ethics/

The heading is tongue-in-cheek, but contains a bit of truth.

One thing I discovered as I started reading things here and reading some blogs is that "legalism" and "legalistic" are treated like horrible obscenities. It's sort of the ultimate insult to throw out.

Why?

I mean, I know that the NT contains some comments about legalistic Pharisees and it somehow became a way for the new Church to distinguish itself from Judaism.

But why? What exactly is wrong with law? Yes, it means rules to follow - but it also means that those rules should be clear. It means justice - but it also means that power is constrained by rules and justice too. It means that both sides can be presented, and a fair decision made. What's wrong with that? Of course, there should be room for mercy and forgiveness in the system, but that shouldn't mean doing away with the whole system. I have to admit that this is one aspect of Protestant theology that I still don't understand. How does it shape how people think about law and justice?

Thoughts?

[DowntownAbbey]

From the article:

Why? Because Judaism is not just about spirituality. It is not simply a code for the salvation of the soul. It is a set of instructions for the creation of what the late Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein zâ€l called “societal beatitude.†It is about bringing God into the shared spaces of our collective life.

I think this quote highlights a key difference between the motives of Christian theology versus that of Judaism. From what I grew up learning as a Southern Baptist, the law of the OT was meant to be a method of salvation, a way to be saved before Christ. But now that Christ has come and died for everyone, the law is no longer needed because we can have direct salvation through Christ.

Here's a couple of the pertinent verses where that theology comes from:

Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed.

Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.

For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God.

There was also the issue within the early church now that salvation could more easily include Gentiles. So Paul and others had to deal with issues as to whether or not Gentiles would have to uphold Jewish law including being circumcised. It could be seen as a sort of pragmatic theological choice to say "No, Jesus covers us so we don't have to follow the law anymore" instead of risking losing non-Jewish converts.

I think at the end of the day, it just meant that Jewish law was thrown out because throughout various denominations rites, rituals and the like became the new "spiritual law". Despite all the clamoring about not being under the law and faith not works, a lot of Christians are still legalistic in some form or another. See how quickly Leviticus 18:22 comes up these days...

[2xx1xy1JD]

One thing that jumped out for me as I read your answer was the idea of law as a method of salvation.

Maybe that's a key distinction in how Judaism and Christianity view things. I've never heard it described that way by Jews - it's described as a way of life. The focus is on what you do now, not so much on an afterlife.

[Boogalou]

This isn't coming from a religious perspective but it has always been my impression that when people use the term legalistic to have a negative connotation it's more because people are following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.

Like when the Duggar men wear jeans to run races in or when the Duggar women wear wholesomewear. They are following the letter of the law, sure, in that they are covered up. But the spirited of the law may be interpreted more as don't draw attention to yourself.

Or if someone were to say that abortion was still wrong even if a woman was raped was in great emotional distress and there was a medical problem where the pregnancy was going to kill her anyway. That again I would call legalistic as you may be following the letter of the law (murder is wrong if you interpret a fetus as having full personhood) but the spirit of the law of preserving life is not heeded.

That's just my perception, of course.

[DowntownAbbey]

I thought about this somemore and I think that the bad rap legalism gets is probably in part because it's supposed to be faith not works for salvation and legalism appears to emphasize works.

[OkToBeTakei]

I don't really get the point to be honest.

I come from a family of lawyers. It has nothing to do with religion.

It is a good career with many interesting branches. I have no idea what religion all the lawyers I socialise with are. It tends not to be a discussion.

As long as they are good at their chosen profession. I would hate it to be for any other reason if that makes sense. Most religions have moral values but so do non-religious.

I find legalistic a different problem.

[August]

Kohlberg's stages of moral development describe six levels of maturity in moral reasoning. Legalism is level four. The higher the level, the more able to respond to a novel situation you are. Because legalist morality cannot extrapolate or show nuance beyond situations explicitly covered by the rules they risk immoral behaviour. Think of a robot with programming compared to true artificial intelligence.

For example, a citizen of a totalitarian state with a legalist morality would follow the rules of the state. A person with a more mature morality would do what is moral regardless of the rules. The classic dilemma is a person hiding a fugitive from a cruel ruler.

The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.

Kohlberg's scale is about how people justify behaviors and his stages are not a method of ranking how moral someone's behavior is. There should however be a correlation between how someone scores on the scale and how they behave, and the general hypothesis is that moral behaviour is more responsible, consistent and predictable from people at higher levels.[13]

[blessalessi]

In the fundie world the legalistic argument is often just thrown out as part of the general sniping about being-a-better-fundie-than-you.

One family headship will call out another family for legalism, to defend their own decision on head-covering/homeschooling/tv watching, and the legalistic headship will respond that, of course, he does not judge the other family, (Jesus does that, for him....) but he is simply following the Lord's calling for his family. Et cetera. Et cetera, et cetera. :D

[2xx1xy1JD]

I might be getting confused because "legalistic" is used in more than one way.

Any criticism that someone is so focused on a detail that they've entirely missed the point or ignored basic morality and humanity is understandable. In any good legal system, you need judges who know when a technicality is important and when to focus on the broader picture of justice.

Downtown Abbey pointed to another view of "legalism" that I've seen in some fundie stuff. This idea that ANY requirement to follow a particular rule is "legalistic", particularly if you cite scripture instead of claiming that you've been "convicted". You then get folks who think that following a rule is actually bad, because it shows that you are still following the Law and might believe in works-based salvation instead of salvation by faith/grace. (I've just read this stuff online, so please correct me if I'm getting it wrong)

[FundieFarmer]

This is my mom's favorite insult for anyone more reformed than she- coupled with being called a Pharisee, it's not unusual to hear it as an insult, as you said. I don't know what the opposite insult would be.

[DowntownAbbey]

Downtown Abbey pointed to another view of "legalism" that I've seen in some fundie stuff. This idea that ANY requirement to follow a particular rule is "legalistic", particularly if you cite scripture instead of claiming that you've been "convicted". You then get folks who think that following a rule is actually bad, because it shows that you are still following the Law and might believe in works-based salvation instead of salvation by faith/grace. (I've just read this stuff online, so please correct me if I'm getting it wrong)

It's not quite as straightforward as that but that's the spirit of how it works, at least from how I experienced it growing up Southern Baptist. But you do bring out the point that legalism is basically a derogatory term used against people who say something is a sin or that a certain law still should be followed because of a certain verse that you think is not a sin or is not a law that should be upheld. So a "good" Christian can think the Duggars are focusing on works through all rules they make up in order to keep themselves from sinning even though what they are more likely thinking is "I don't want to follow all those rules. This isn't the Christianity I signed up for." This is generally how I viewed the Duggars back in the day.

It's also irregularly applied. Certain laws are out because you don't want to follow them, but others are fine because they happen to line up with your personal beliefs/preferences. Like if you ask a Christian man why he trims/shaves his beard (Leviticus 19:27), a Christian woman why she didn't do the proper purification ritual after giving birth (Leviticus 12:2-8), or a conservative Christian why they they talk disparagingly about foreigners in America (Leviticus 19:33), they're liable to use the "we're not under the law 'cause Jesus" argument against legalism. But ask them if they have a religious reason for being against tattoos, they might quote you Leviticus 19:28 back.

A hard and fast rule some Christians I knew went by was that an Old Testament law only really applied to Christians if it was repeated in the New Testament. So homosexuality remains a sin (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9) while tattoos would seem to be okay now since they're only mentioned in Leviticus 19:28 (although most Christians I know would make some oblique reference to the New Testament verses about your body being a temple as a counterargument).

At the same time, this rule that New Testament laws/commands matter is also irregularly applied. How many American Christian women wear head coverings in church (1 Corinthians 11:10) or don't speak at church (1 Corinthians 14:34)? Those verse get the "excuses" of "Well, that was just the culture then" or "Paul was only speaking to that specific church" that things like the verses on homosexuality don't.*

A good Evangelical Christian website that discusses this issue in-depth is gci.org/law/otl. They discuss the differences between the Old and New Covenant, how some laws can now be considered obsolete, and how some still must be followed. I used this site all the time back when I was a Sunday School teacher. :lol:

*I'm not saying those are wrong interpretations of those verses, but rather than those verses get to be interpreted or looked at differently than other verses where the context doesn't matter because the verse says something someone likes/agrees with.

[Arete]

Legalism is often used as an insult even in the secular world based on the belief that you can follow/observe all the rules and still be a bad/immoral person or make a decision that results in an immoral outcome.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Downtown Abbey - how on earth do they argue that Lev. 19:33 (not oppressing strangers) doesn't apply? Isn't it just a specific example of the Golden Rule?

I also think my head might explode if I try to hard to figure out some of Michael Pearl's stuff. According to him, keeping the Sabbath is bad:

If you are a Sabbath keeper, you are sinning. It is a sin to keep the Sabbath. It is a sin because you are falling from grace. You are ignoring the provision of God in Christ.

nogreaterjoy.org/video/bible-questions-with-michael-pearl-should-christians-observe-the-sabbath-episode-085/

When it comes to swatting babies with spoons or plumbing line, though, he'll cheerfully quote Proverbs all over the place.

nogreaterjoy.org/articles/too-young-to-spank/?topic_slug=girls-and-boys-the-rod

[nolongerIFBx]

As someone raised IFBx, I can tell you about my experience of legalism and my current understanding of it from a religious POV.

In IFBx churches, we were told that those liberal Evangelicals accused us of being legalistic, but we were not because the definition of legalism was adding works to salvation. We believed that all that was required for salvation was a recognition of ourselves as a sinner unworthy of entering heaven on our own merit and acceptance of Jesus death on the cross as the payment for our sins which put His perfect merit on our account, allowing us entrance to heaven. We did not require baptism, church membership, tithing, or being a good person. That was all those other people. They were the legalists. And by one definition of the word "legalist" they were correct.

But in usage, legalist does not always mean adding to salvation. In general when someone uses the term "legalist" in a religious context, they are more often talking about the requirement of doing good works to earn God's favor--NOT for salvation, but so that He is pleased with them. That may have been the wording that was used, but what I seemed to understand was that I needed to do that to earn God's love. So when the Duggar girls wear skirts only, and both sexes never kiss before marriage and only go on chaperoned dates, they aren't doing these things because they think that they--or anyone else--will go to hell if they don't, but they do think that it makes God more pleased with them than with those who don't, and if they are anything like me and those I know who grew up in IFBx and ATI cultures, you do/don't do those things because you really want God to love you. This also tied up in an Old Testament view of God as an angry Father just waiting to bonk you if you do something that doesn't please Him.

When I made the move to leave my extremism, I had come to the realization that God IS love. There isn't anything I could do to make God love me less and--surprise, surprise--there wasn't anything that I could do to make Him love me more either. It is a fine line of difference that possibly someone who has not lived through it can see or understand, but the legalist says, "I do/don't do X because God commands X and I want to please Him (Him to love me)" and the "free bird" says "God loves me but I choose to do/not to do X because I want to please Him." This is not done out of fear of punishment--I personally believe that all sin past and future was placed on Christ and paid for at Calvary so now we may suffer consequences, but not punishment--but only out of a desire to show love to Him as He has shown to us. And if we do fail, which we will, we know that we have not lost one iota of God's love. He knew we would fail and that did not stop Him from loving us. The reason that fundie extremists don't like this idea is that they are sure that given this kind of freedom (from fear and guilt), people will just go crazy doing X because God will love them anyway. And, sure, there are those who will. Paul talks about that in Galatians 5, Christians using their freedom to indulge their fleshly desires, but he admonishes them to use their freedom instead to show love to others. What fundie extremists make no allowance for is the ability of Holy Spirit to help the Christian to do/don't do X out of love rather than out of fear.

("X" isn't necessarily "girls wearing skirts only, both sexes never kissing before marriage and only going on chaperoned dates" or whatever you can think of that X might be. I don't even think X is always the same for every person.)

There are some other great comments on the OP on this thread. I really like the thought that it is about following the letter of law not the spirit of the law. Jesus addressed that when he talked about if a soldier asked you to carry something for him, the law required that you had to carry it for one mile, but Jesus said to forget the law, carry it two miles. It isn't about conforming to the law, but about going beyond what was required. Anyway, that's just some of my thoughts on legalism.

[2xx1xy1JD]

As someone raised IFBx, I can tell you about my experience of legalism and my current understanding of it from a religious POV.

In IFBx churches, we were told that those liberal Evangelicals accused us of being legalistic, but we were not because the definition of legalism was adding works to salvation. We believed that all that was required for salvation was a recognition of ourselves as a sinner unworthy of entering heaven on our own merit and acceptance of Jesus death on the cross as the payment for our sins which put His perfect merit on our account, allowing us entrance to heaven. We did not require baptism, church membership, tithing, or being a good person. That was all those other people. They were the legalists. And by one definition of the word "legalist" they were correct.

But in usage, legalist does not always mean adding to salvation. In general when someone uses the term "legalist" in a religious context, they are more often talking about the requirement of doing good works to earn God's favor--NOT for salvation, but so that He is pleased with them. That may have been the wording that was used, but what I seemed to understand was that I needed to do that to earn God's love. So when the Duggar girls wear skirts only, and both sexes never kiss before marriage and only go on chaperoned dates, they aren't doing these things because they think that they--or anyone else--will go to hell if they don't, but they do think that it makes God more pleased with them than with those who don't, and if they are anything like me and those I know who grew up in IFBx and ATI cultures, you do/don't do those things because you really want God to love you. This also tied up in an Old Testament view of God as an angry Father just waiting to bonk you if you do something that doesn't please Him.

When I made the move to leave my extremism, I had come to the realization that God IS love. There isn't anything I could do to make God love me less and--surprise, surprise--there wasn't anything that I could do to make Him love me more either. It is a fine line of difference that possibly someone who has not lived through it can see or understand, but the legalist says, "I do/don't do X because God commands X and I want to please Him (Him to love me)" and the "free bird" says "God loves me but I choose to do/not to do X because I want to please Him." This is not done out of fear of punishment--I personally believe that all sin past and future was placed on Christ and paid for at Calvary so now we may suffer consequences, but not punishment--but only out of a desire to show love to Him as He has shown to us. And if we do fail, which we will, we know that we have not lost one iota of God's love. He knew we would fail and that did not stop Him from loving us. The reason that fundie extremists don't like this idea is that they are sure that given this kind of freedom (from fear and guilt), people will just go crazy doing X because God will love them anyway. And, sure, there are those who will. Paul talks about that in Galatians 5, Christians using their freedom to indulge their fleshly desires, but he admonishes them to use their freedom instead to show love to others. What fundie extremists make no allowance for is the ability of Holy Spirit to help the Christian to do/don't do X out of love rather than out of fear.

("X" isn't necessarily "girls wearing skirts only, both sexes never kissing before marriage and only going on chaperoned dates" or whatever you can think of that X might be. I don't even think X is always the same for every person.)

There are some other great comments on the OP on this thread. I really like the thought that it is about following the letter of law not the spirit of the law. Jesus addressed that when he talked about if a soldier asked you to carry something for him, the law required that you had to carry it for one mile, but Jesus said to forget the law, carry it two miles. It isn't about conforming to the law, but about going beyond what was required. Anyway, that's just some of my thoughts on legalism.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Like I said, I really had no exposure to Protestant theology growing up, so I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

Would you describe your current beliefs as liberal evangelical or mainline Protestant? Or something else?

I'm also trying to figure out what the difference is being doing good works to earn God's love or doing good works to please God. It sort of sounds the same in my head. I can understand an analogy to a parent having unconditional love for a child - but at the same time, doesn't a parent still have standards for behavior, and doesn't a parent want their child to do good things and avoid doing bad stuff?

In liberal evangelical circles, would they actually criticize someone who was doing good stuff if they thought the reason for it was slightly off?

Finally, is there any sense "mission" with doing good stuff? Like "you were created use your unique talents to fix and improve the world, go do it"?

[EmiGirl]

Thanks for the detailed response.

Like I said, I really had no exposure to Protestant theology growing up, so I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

Would you describe your current beliefs as liberal evangelical or mainline Protestant? Or something else?

I'm also trying to figure out what the difference is being doing good works to earn God's love or doing good works to please God. It sort of sounds the same in my head. I can understand an analogy to a parent having unconditional love for a child - but at the same time, doesn't a parent still have standards for behavior, and doesn't a parent want their child to do good things and avoid doing bad stuff?

In liberal evangelical circles, would they actually criticize someone who was doing good stuff if they thought the reason for it was slightly off?

Finally, is there any sense "mission" with doing good stuff? Like "you were created use your unique talents to fix and improve the world, go do it"?

The point is that after you commit your life to Christ you WANT to do good things. You don't do them to make God happy or to earn your way into Heaven, but you do them because you see everyone as one of God's creations. We're supposed to show God to the world through our love. Theyre supposed to see His love in how we go about our day to day lives. That's why I have such a big problem with fundie because they totally miss the point.

[FundieFarmer]

Growing up, we had another perspective. It wasn't a matter of impressing God or trying to get Him to love you more, it was just what the Bible said you should do if you've committed to following Him, so you strive to do it, simple as that. Sometimes you're successful, sometimes you're not, but the point is you made your best effort to follow your faith and honor Him. Then again, I'm orthodox reformed Presbyterian, so no number of works make you more or less saved in our theology anyway.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Thanks again. I appreciate everyone who is willing to help me understand what their beliefs are - even if I may be doing some debate or asking critical questions.

Onto a question:

Let's say you have a food bank, with some volunteers.

Volunteer A is there because she is a strong Christian and feels convicted to do this to show the hungry how great God is.

Volunteer B is there because he believes that God/Jesus said to feed the hungry, period. He doesn't always want to get out of bed to go help, but he thinks that his feelings are less important that the requirement to help.

Volunteer C doesn't follow any particular religious belief. She is, however, broken-hearted that there are people in her city that don't have enough to eat, so she volunteeers to help them out.

Volunteer D is Jewish, and believes that God needs him to use his skills to repair the world by feeding the hungry, so he's helping the food bank.

Volunteer E is a devout Hindu and believes in karma. She's doing good stuff like helping at the food bank, because she believes that what goes around comes around.

Volunteer F is a socialist atheist. He believes that the existing social structure is unfair, and that people have a basic right to adequate food.

Volunteer G is a nominal Buddhist. She really wants to get into medical school, and knows that volunteer experience of this sort is crucial.

Assume that A through G all work hard during their shift and are useful.

H stays home. He is a Satanist or Ayn Rand atheist, and doesn't believe that he's obligated to help others. He sees no personal benefit to helping out.

I stays home. She is a Christian with a strong belief in Jesus. She either believes that she is saved due to her beliefs, or believes that there is nothing that she could do to affect whether or not she is saved. She didn't feel a strong urge to get out of bed.

J comes to donate to the food bank. He is Muslim, and believes that this is part of his zakat obligation.

Question: How to you/your religion view each of A through J? Why?

[Firiel]

This will be based on my personal opinions as a liberal Christian.

A: Glad she's helping, but homeless people are far more than just potential converts-- they are individuals in their own right. The "conversion" mindset often ignores this fact, IMO. But if she doesn't proselytize to people unless prompted by them (i.e. they ask her about it), then I don't see any problem with what actually happens.

B: Good for him. We don't always want to help every day, and I personally think we have social obligations even if we don't enjoy fulfilling them (I'm bad about this personally, though :embarrassed: ). I would hope he sees some value in it besides obeying a command, though, because passion about a cause does, at some point, affect performance.

C: Good for her. I hope she continues to seek out what is best for people instead of just doing volunteer work that eases her conscience. I think this can be a pitfall of empathetic people wanting to help-- they can get caught up in doing things like short-term aid work because they can see the results and feel better about society without thinking about how their "help" could be hurting people in the long run. This is a generalization, and I know that. Not all empathetic people will fall into this trap.

D: Pretty much the same as B.

E: Glad she's helping. I don't think doing something mainly because it will help you is the best motivation, but in this case, it's prompting her to help the less fortunate, so it's all good in the long run.

F: Good for him. His acknowledgement of an underlying social structure will, I think, make him less susceptible to pointless aid than C might be. But, on the flip side, if he lacks the passion for helping people just to help them that C does, he might not make it as big a priority in his life.

H: He could at least have the decency to feel guilty for not helping out! (I think self-first philosophy found officially in Satanism and Ayn Rand atheism but elsewhere too is really damaging to the world.)

I: She should be doing good regardless of if it affects her salvation or not. One of my favorite things about the Christian faith is the transformation aspect-- the idea that following Jesus can not only change your behavior but also change your desires to be more oriented towards others. I think it's foundational to Christianity. But sometimes, you need to do the right thing even if it doesn't feel great and natural to you. Because it's not all about you. That's kind of the whole point.

J: Good for him! Food banks need volunteers and donors.

[FundieFarmer]

I'll answer in color, though I will say that even though my denomination is very Calvinist and I do follow the orthodox faith, I'm pretty relaxed when it comes to how it applies to others or how I think of them. But here's my 2 cents:

Thanks again. I appreciate everyone who is willing to help me understand what their beliefs are - even if I may be doing some debate or asking critical questions.

Onto a question:

Let's say you have a food bank, with some volunteers.

Volunteer A is there because she is a strong Christian and feels convicted to do this to show the hungry how great God is. You go, Volunteer person. Way to help the poor and downtrodden, or in Jesus-speak, the "least of these"... just don't be aggressive about shoving God down their throats.

Volunteer B is there because he believes that God/Jesus said to feed the hungry, period. He doesn't always want to get out of bed to go help, but he thinks that his feelings are less important that the requirement to help. You go, Volunteer B. This is also an extra-Calvinist way of doing things, and would probably be me on an early Saturday morning. :lol:

Volunteer C doesn't follow any particular religious belief. She is, however, broken-hearted that there are people in her city that don't have enough to eat, so she volunteeers to help them out. You go, Volunteer C.

Volunteer D is Jewish, and believes that God needs him to use his skills to repair the world by feeding the hungry, so he's helping the food bank. You go, Volunteer D.

Volunteer E is a devout Hindu and believes in karma. She's doing good stuff like helping at the food bank, because she believes that what goes around comes around. You go, Volunteer E.

Volunteer F is a socialist atheist. He believes that the existing social structure is unfair, and that people have a basic right to adequate food. You go, Volunteer F.

Volunteer G is a nominal Buddhist. She really wants to get into medical school, and knows that volunteer experience of this sort is crucial. You go, Volunteer G. Also, way to learn from this so that you can in turn keep helping others.

Assume that A through G all work hard during their shift and are useful.

H stays home. He is a Satanist or Ayn Rand atheist, and doesn't believe that he's obligated to help others. He sees no personal benefit to helping out. That's fine with me, though it doesn't hurt to help out your community every once in a while.

I stays home. She is a Christian with a strong belief in Jesus. She either believes that she is saved due to her beliefs, or believes that there is nothing that she could do to affect whether or not she is saved. She didn't feel a strong urge to get out of bed. That's definitely a common but interesting perspective; it's out of line with the theology I believe in that if the Bible asks you to do something, you strive to do it, which includes helping the less fortunate, but is in line with the idea that your works don't change your salvation. Also, she could serve in another capacity, but if she never does, she might want to try it out. But she won't be any more or less saved in the Christian faith if she does or doesn't.

J comes to donate to the food bank. He is Muslim, and believes that this is part of his zakat obligation.You go, J.

Question: How to you/your religion view each of A through J? Why? If a liberal Calvinist were such a thing, I'd probably be the poster child: I just simply don't believe in getting in your business or being a bitch just because you "aren't saved", unlike some of our fundies here on FJ. I think everyone's contributions are valuable, regardless of how they're given or what their faith/reasoning is. There's no point in trying to follow the rules of something you don't believe. If I were answering on behalf of many of my denomination, the answers would be closer to saying "Thank you for helping. Your spiritual beliefs are extra super wrong and here's why, but thanks for helping."

[nolongerIFBx]

While those I grew up with would consider me a liberal, according to many of the descriptions provided on this board, I'm still a fundie. For me, I'm not sure I really fit under any label. I attend a church that I was floored (and terribly disappointed) to learn identifies as IFB, but only because they pulled out of the SBC. They have heard of some of the big names of people in the IFBx circles, but were never afilliated with them and never would be willing to be because they do consider them to be-ironically to this conversation--legalists. They have no problem with CCM, do not preach against drinking or dancing, women wear pants and shorts to church, they have classes on alternatives to spanking, services only on Sunday AM, no Sunday evening or Wednesday evening services and no soulwinning or bus routes. While not part of the SBC, they are an affiliate so that the pastor can teach in SBC colleges (he has degrees in Hebrew) and the members can attend at a discount. They will work alongside other churches in town that they may not have 100% agreement with on doctrine. The pastor does not insist that all members must be counseled by him for every little thing in their lives and will send them to a counselor (even though he has more than just "required to get a pastoral degree" training in counseling himself). There just is almost nothing about it that resembles what I would term fundie, but like I said, they would still be within fundie-lite descriptions of this board. I might even still fall left of them, but still be well within fundie-lite even though I really prefer no CCM in the church because it is played at such decibels as to make me cringe!!But I've come to accept that as simply a personal preference in music type.

I'm also trying to figure out what the difference is being doing good works to earn God's love or doing good works to please God. It sort of sounds the same in my head. I can understand an analogy to a parent having unconditional love for a child - but at the same time, doesn't a parent still have standards for behavior, and doesn't a parent want their child to do good things and avoid doing bad stuff?

In liberal evangelical circles, would they actually criticize someone who was doing good stuff if they thought the reason for it was slightly off?

Finally, is there any sense "mission" with doing good stuff? Like "you were created use your unique talents to fix and improve the world, go do it"?

The point is that after you commit your life to Christ you WANT to do good things. You don't do them to make God happy or to earn your way into Heaven, but you do them because you see everyone as one of God's creations. We're supposed to show God to the world through our love. Theyre supposed to see His love in how we go about our day to day lives. That's why I have such a big problem with fundie because they totally miss the point.

Yes, one is doing good to earn God's love/favor. The other is simply an outpouring that results from a love of God. Like I mentioned, it is a fine difference that I think might be hard to understand unless you had experienced it. Maybe a little like marriage. In a patriarchal marriage, wifey fixes man's favorite meal because it is her duty. In a egalitarian marriage, one spouse might fix the other's favorite meal, but it is because they want to make the other spouse happy--not because they have to because it is their duty--and they are actually excited and eager to do so. Yes, it still takes work. Yes, they are busy, and they have to sacrifice some of their time to make the meal, but they aren't thinking about themselves but about their spouse's face when they see that plate on the table. Both spouses got their favorite meal, but the motivation behind the one who did the cooking was entirely different even though the action may have appeared to be exactly the same to anyone observing them (except that we'll point out that in the egalitarian marriage, maybe it was a male that did the cooking for his wife/husband!).

[nolongerIFBx]

Thanks again. I appreciate everyone who is willing to help me understand what their beliefs are - even if I may be doing some debate or asking critical questions.

Fun!!

Onto a question:

Let's say you have a food bank, with some volunteers.

Volunteer A is there because she is a strong Christian and feels convicted to do this to show the hungry how great God is. This is good. However, unless the food bank states plainly that it is a Christian food bank, so that anyone who comes there is aware of that, she should not go out of her way to bring up "how great God is" unless one of the hungry brings it up first and shows interest in conversation. AND that conversation should not in anyway disrupt the flow of work. If it does, she should make an appointment to discuss it later.

Volunteer B is there because he believes that God/Jesus said to feed the hungry, period. He doesn't always want to get out of bed to go help, but he thinks that his feelings are less important that the requirement to help.Even if you were motivated to volunteer out of an outpouring of love, there are always going to be days when you don't feel like getting out of bed. If he made a commitment to volunteer today, he should keep his commitment and not leave the food bank in the lurch. However, Volunteer B might consider donating food to feed the hungry and instead finding something he enjoys doing, say reading to children in a community after school program, to help the less fortunate and feed their minds.

Volunteer C doesn't follow any particular religious belief. She is, however, broken-hearted that there are people in her city that don't have enough to eat, so she volunteeers to help them out. Bravo! When you believe in something, put feet to it!

Volunteer D is Jewish, and believes that God needs him to use his skills to repair the world by feeding the hungry, so he's helping the food bank. I'm going to disagree that God needs him, but agree that God does usually employ humans to do His work, so way to go!

Volunteer E is a devout Hindu and believes in karma. She's doing good stuff like helping at the food bank, because she believes that what goes around comes around. As I understand Hinduism, Karma does not actually work in the way that we use it in every day language (what goes around comes around). I'm not sure that they would volunteer at a food bank because to help the poor would be to change their karma (status) and maybe their karma (status) did not deserve to be changed. Karma can only change at reincarnation--higher or lower--and to change it during their lifetime is wrong. But I only took Religion 101 so maybe someone who is Hindu or has studied more about it can answer that question.

Volunteer F is a socialist atheist. He believes that the existing social structure is unfair, and that people have a basic right to adequate food.Bravo! When you believe in something, put feet to it!

Volunteer G is a nominal Buddhist. She really wants to get into medical school, and knows that volunteer experience of this sort is crucial.While motivation out of belief is beautiful, the motivation of selfish gain still gets things done. Good luck in medical school!

Assume that A through G all work hard during their shift and are useful.

H stays home. He is a Satanist or Ayn Rand atheist, and doesn't believe that he's obligated to help others. He sees no personal benefit to helping out. You may not be obligated by your beliefs to help others, even though I find that very sad, but psychology proves that there is personal benefit to helping others, so do it for your psychological health!

I stays home. She is a Christian with a strong belief in Jesus. She either believes that she is saved due to her beliefs, or believes that there is nothing that she could do to affect whether or not she is saved. She didn't feel a strong urge to get out of bed.Well, I, you're right. Volunteering does not change the location of your soul after death. However, you are the kind of Christian that makes other Christians ask, "I wonder if she is really a Christian?" because there just doesn't seem to be anything inside of you that has a desire to volunteer whether out of A's desire to show God's love or even B's duty. It isn't my job to judge your salvation; it is God's. But I'm not perfect either and the thought crosses my mind even though I immediately ask forgiveness from God for being judgmental and remind myself that that there may be factors that I don't know about and that is between you and Him and none of my business.

J comes to donate to the food bank. He is Muslim, and believes that this is part of his zakat obligation.Very similar to B.

Question: How to you/your religion view each of A through J? Why?

[EmiGirl]

This.