The State of the UPC

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

AWB (and MB) and people like that young man is frequently used as fear trophies to keep other's "on the inside" from thinking, to not consider life outside of the bubble they are stuck in. "If you do, you'll end up like them."

Perhaps they are, but this was my personal observation of a friend; it wasn't presented in a sermon. I'm not using him as a "fear trophy"; I'm exploring the reasons for such events, and I find it incredibly sad that he couldn't survive outside of the environment he was used to.

Many do stumble. Some because their heart was never right. Others because they are showing their spiritual immaturity. Some eventually find their feet, others never make it back home. That should never be used to justify legalism. If anything, it should make one view legalism with more contempt. Late-term abortion type contempt.

Paul "justified legalism" in some cases and instructed those who felt more liberty to be careful of those who had weaknesses.

I Corinthians 8:7-13 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. ...But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. ...But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. ...And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? ...But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Perhaps they are, but this was my personal observation of a friend; it wasn't presented in a sermon. I'm not using him as a "fear trophy"; I'm exploring the reasons for such events, and I find it incredibly sad that he couldn't survive outside of the environment he was used to.



Paul "justified legalism" in some cases and instructed those who felt more liberty to be careful of those who had weaknesses.

I Corinthians 8:7-13 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. ...But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. ...But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. ...And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? ...But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

This was a self imposed "legalism" not a pastor beating someone into line.

No comparison.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

This was a self imposed "legalism" not a pastor beating someone into line.

No comparison.

It wasn't legalism at all.

It was simply foregoing personal liberties in order to serve a higher cause.

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

It wasn't legalism at all.

It was simply foregoing personal liberties in order to serve a higher cause.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

This was a self imposed "legalism" not a pastor beating someone into line.

No comparison.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. How was it self-imposed legalism?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

It wasn't legalism at all.

It was simply foregoing personal liberties in order to serve a higher cause.

Which is why I used " " I didn't use the term she did.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Perhaps they are, but this was my personal observation of a friend; it wasn't presented in a sermon. I'm not using him as a "fear trophy"; I'm exploring the reasons for such events, and I find it incredibly sad that he couldn't survive outside of the environment he was used to.



Paul "justified legalism" in some cases and instructed those who felt more liberty to be careful of those who had weaknesses.

I Corinthians 8:7-13 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. ...But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. ...But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. ...And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? ...But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Negative, MB. Paul did not justify legalism. The issue of eating food offered to idols was hardly a "rule of the Church" nor taught as a way to "be Holy." In fact, Paul's attention to this issue was just the opposite. At the same time, the uniqueness of a new Jewish Church, forming into a wild Jesus Movement brought some very exceptional situations... this being one of them.

In your example, the culprits are those who made something law when God never did. At least the Jews can claim that they were obeying God's law.

However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated. 8 It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do.

9 But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble

And this principle goes far beyond the example here. This is a principle lib and con churches alike should uphold. In Romans 14, Paul is much more articulate about this.

The fact is, this young man bought into moralism and rules. He left and perhaps violated his own conscience, and does what many do when they leave UPC-type churches... FREAK OUT HARD. It's like 18-year olds leaving Mom's house all over again. Their make-up looks horrible. Hairdo experimentation. Bouts with vanity. Sexual immorality. They don't "feel" saved anymore (because the rules gave them that feeling), and they start acting in ways an unsaved person would. Legalism kills. Even if they stay in their churches, young men like this, I'm not sure, really are believers. They are obeyers.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm not sure I understand your comment. How was it self-imposed legalism?

Christians not excercising certian liberties while in the presence of weaker brothers is not the same as a pastor beating people over the head with a list of rules "to keep them safe."

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Those who leave the UPCI or other organizations to pastor or begin churches where rules are left off in favor of widely applicable principles must not fail to acknowledge this reality. If they do, then people who are formerly accustomed to tight boundaries may not thrive. We can chalk that up to weakness or a lack of faith in the grace of God, and maybe even brush them off, but is that really the best solution? Some may be in spiritual crises and not even know it. In one sense, the stripping away of rules and boundaries can reveal one's spiritual health very quickly, but that alone needs to be monitored by leaders who are sensitive to the inherent issues produced by a sudden change in environment.

Most excellent insights!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Negative, MB. Paul did not justify legalism. The issue of eating food offered to idols was hardly a "rule of the Church" nor taught as a way to "be Holy." In fact, Paul's attention to this issue was just the opposite. At the same time, the uniqueness of a new Jewish Church, forming into a wild Jesus Movement brought some very exceptional situations... this being one of them.

In your example, the culprits are those who made something law when God never did. At least the Jews can claim that they were obeying God's law.



And this principle goes far beyond the example here. This is a principle lib and con churches alike should uphold. In Romans 14, Paul is much more articulate about this.

The fact is, this young man bought into moralism and rules. He left and perhaps violated his own conscience, and does what many do when they leave UPC-type churches... FREAK OUT HARD. It's like 18-year olds leaving Mom's house all over again. Their make-up looks horrible. Hairdo experimentation. Bouts with vanity. Sexual immorality. They don't "feel" saved anymore (because the rules gave them that feeling), and they start acting in ways an unsaved person would. Legalism kills. Even if they stay in their churches, young men like this, I'm not sure, really are believers. They are obeyers.