The State of the UPC

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

It wasn't legalism at all.

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

Of course Paul looks like a hypocrite when later he boasts about eating food in the temple

The principle is right here:
And when you sin against other believers[c] by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ.

1) Back in my response to MB, I noted the uniqueness here
2) Romans 14 gives responsibilities to both parties, which include not projecting convictions on each other
3) We should most definitely support one another in love, encouraging them to be honest with their conscience in matters that are gray.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

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."

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

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."

Absolutely, don't worry about keeping them safe from hell

Not at the cost of possible hurt feelings.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Absolutely, don't worry about keeping them safe from hell

Not at the cost of possible hurt feelings.

Huh??

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Absolutely, don't worry about keeping them safe from hell

Not at the cost of possible hurt feelings.

How silly. The idea that rules keep you safe deom hell is just insane. Salvation is about a relationship with Christ and no matter how much I fake a relationship by substituting rules it doen't make me saved.

It is not about hurt feelings it is about the fact that YOU or anyone else does not have the authority to add to the Gospel.

[MissBrattified]

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.

You're missing my point; regardless of the reasons for Paul's statements, the outcome was the same:

1. There were believers who had weaknesses in certain areas
2. Partaking in the liberties of others OR seeing other Christians partake in liberties could cause them to stumble
3. Paul asked those who felt more freedom to be careful of those *weaker* believers

My point is not to support a pastor beating his congregation over the head with rules; my point is to acknowledge the existence of weaknesses in other believers and show that we are short-sighted when we brush off the possibility, or worse, brush off Christians we view as weak.

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.

Exactly. All of these things are realities. So, what can churches which preach and teach liberty do to help such people? And no, I would NOT discount other believers who have weaknesses in their relationship with God or in their faith as not being believers at all. That's no different than cons pointing to people who walk with God in liberty as unbelievers, discounting them altogether as fellow Christians. The problem needs to be solved and those people need to be salvaged; not brushed off as never having been right with God in the first place.

Further, to address the way your framing the topic, not all pastors "beat their congregations over the head" with rules. Some put rules in place they see as necessary for one reason or another--and even liberal pastors do that. I think we should show respect for the insight of pastors into their congregations' needs. Just like some people flounder when they are pressed under someone's thumb too hard, others flounder when they aren't pressed at all.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

How silly. The idea that rules keep you safe deom hell is just insane. Salvation is about a relationship with Christ and no matter how much I fake a relationship by substituting rules it doen't make me saved.

It is not about hurt feelings it is about the fact that YOU or anyone else does not have the authority to add to the Gospel.

It's an Elder Brotherism. Another form of lostness.

Moralism has trumped the Gospel is some circles.

[aegsm76]

And "the Gospel" has trumped the moral part of the book in some circles.

Sort of "we have liberty" so we can do whatever and grace will cover it.

Neither is correct.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

And "the Gospel" has trumped the moral part of the book in some circles.

Sort of "we have liberty" so we can do whatever and grace will cover it.

Neither is correct.

Nope. While it is claimed this is what some believe, I have never met them.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

You're missing my point; regardless of the reasons for Paul's statements, the outcome was the same:

Actually the reason he said the statements is critical if you intend on making an application. Skipping over that is not "beside the point" at all.

1. There were believers who had weaknesses in certain areas
2. Partaking in the liberties of others OR seeing other Christians partake in liberties could cause them to stumble
3. Paul asked those who felt more freedom to be careful of those *weaker* believers

Do you relate this young man's (whom you said you knew) fall to be at the expense of the brothers he hung with afterward? It seems to be the point you are making?

My point is not to support a pastor beating his congregation over the head with rules; my point is to acknowledge the existence of weaknesses in other believers and show that we are short-sighted when we brush off the possibility, or worse, brush off Christians we view as weak.

These weaknesses are cultured in the bubble of Moralism and Legalism. Like fungus grows in cold, damp places --- weakness and sanctified cripples are produced in the environments that you are describing. I've seen it for years.

No one has advocated brushing off Christians we view as weak. That's ridiculous. Who has done that? You haven't even suggested this was done to your friend? Was it? I work with people quite often these days who have left legalistic Churches, and have tried to be a support for them in their transition. Reminding them not to violate their conscience is always first. When they are mature, and have understanding (which is what Paul was hitting at in 1 Cor 8), then they make changes. Those who do things prematurely usually had the wrong motives to begin with -- or in the shuffle of this "whole new world" lost the voice of Jesus in their life.

Exactly. All of these things are realities. So, what can churches which preach and teach liberty do to help such people? And no, I would NOT discount other believers who have weaknesses in their relationship with God or in their faith as not being believers at all. That's no different than cons pointing to people who walk with God in liberty as unbelievers, discounting them altogether as fellow Christians. The problem needs to be solved and those people need to be salvaged; not brushed off as never having been right with God in the first place.

Again, you are saying something that I didn't say. I didn't apply that to all "weaker brothers." But I do believe there are many conformists that I attended church with in the past that had no relationship built on trust and believing in God, but more in social conformity. There was no Gospel in it. They were going to be saved by continuing to do what they were told and if they kept their nose out of trouble.

I'm personally involved in helping "salvage" people like this. Part of that means giving patience for when they fall. And being their to gently restore them.

Further, to address the way your framing the topic, not all pastors "beat their congregations over the head" with rules. Some put rules in place they see as necessary for one reason or another--and even liberal pastors do that. I think we should show respect for the insight of pastors into their congregations' needs. Just like some people flounder when they are pressed under someone's thumb too hard, others flounder when they aren't pressed at all.

I like how you want to set this up so objectively, but I'll disagree. Not all churches enforce group conformity to an endless list of rules. That's just not the truth. Most will standby Biblical commands for how a disciple of Jesus should behave, but even then, unless its gross immorality, we give people space to work out that relationship with Jesus, and to allow the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to be in control, stepping away and realizing we don't have to control everything. Many do "beat rules over the congregations head" -- at least until they have the size where group conformity can do most of the preaching.

Pastors should minister to the congregations need -- not by rules, but by listening, being there with them, praying with them, and being actively involved in their lives. Rules are the lazy way out.