Two Methods of Evaluating Holiness In Apostolic Conservative Churches

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

. . . While it is true that some kinds of free spirited people often have a lower standard of morality because of their propensity to rebel and so forth, what is not factored in is the fact that people, who are free spirited, emotionally secure and or visionary are usually the first ones who have enough courage to initiate change. For example they do not respond to ‘group think’ mentality by following where everyone else is going. For example, they will not keep marching toward a cliff just because the majority is headed that way without reasonable explanation of why everyone is in lock step toward that direction. . . .

2. The second view or method of evaluating holiness rejects making personal anyone’s departure and subsequent history the issue and deals with strictly theological aspects of holiness doctrines. These people are not the reformers that the first group is, but as the cliff gets closer they become more open minded and after careful study of scripture, if they determine that there is a autocratic hegemony leading, they will also leave the group in larger numbers giving legitimacy to the claims of the reformers. All through church history this cycle was in effect. First, it was Martin Luther, the rebel, according to the Catholic Church, but in time, throngs of Protestants, or pro-test-tors followed Luther’s lead and the rest is reformation history. When dealing with holiness doctrines (and others) that seem extreme, keep in mind that Christ said the truth would make us free. If that be so, then always remember that to the degree we have truth is the same degree in which we are free. . . .

Most of us are weary of the unnecessary and restrictive rules that the government keeps adding to our lives. Likewise the church is weary of those laws of man that keep piling up and restricting our freedom in Christ. Eventually brave souls do decide that this performance based life is not the life that Christ promised . . . .

And it should be understood that grace does not automatically nullify the guidelines set in place by spiritual leadership……grace only asks that the standards be legitimized by proper scriptural exegesis rather than be accepted as truth simply because they happen to have been in the organizational archives of a previous group of leaders that made these holiness attachments in a snapshot of time and in a culture that no longer exists. This would lead to a relevance factor with regard to holiness standards that are attached to things like apparel, and activities allowed or disallowed as they are not carved in stone as are the principles of the Ten Commandments which are permanent for all time because they contain unchanging principles that are locked into the heart of God. . . .

When tradition makes the norm extremist and radical, it promotes a certain “unnecessary rebellion.” If for example leadership allowed more latitude for private interpretation, you would see the norm rejecting non-essential, burdensome standards. . . .

With a performance emphasis on holiness, grace becomes just a "word" instead of the refreshing balm of healing oil that God wants to apply. . . .

Boilerplate sour grapes.

This concept does not do away with clear scriptural prohibitions but rather redefines the whole template that religion lays upon us with the “oughts” and the “ought nots” that rain down a steady stream of guilt and condemnation to believers that feel totally incapable of living up to all of the standards contained in their church.

We agree that there are necessary load bearing walls of holiness that flow from the “Ten Commandment” that protect us and keeps us in the tower of the Name of Jesus.

. . . But there are too many unnecessary walls constructed by church denominations that keep people out of the church and puts abusive burdens on the people that remain in these churches.

The guidelines of shepherds buttress the walls of the 10C and keep them from crumbling. If your eyes are on Jesus, the pastoral guidelines are handrails, not chains and irons. His burden is light.

If leadership would draw the line in a different spot for excessive, non-essential standards there would not be an image of liberalism with regard to these controversial standards. Bottom line: Judging by the negative experiences and failures of free spirited people who have left and then been shunned by the church (which is unscriptural (Gal 6:1) and which may have helped push them to an extreme, is a poor excuse to continue trying to enforce any unnecessary yokes of religious tradition. . . .

The trouble with compromising with compromisers is that they always come back for more. Once the anchor has been yanked, it's difficult to draw an imaginary line somewhere out in the ocean and say that the ship will not be allowed to drift across it.


How's that for a response? Is that what you had in mind?