My holiness standards are BETTER!

[noeticknight]

"...immodesty and foppish, flamboyant dress is full of rules given by people who feel that outward standards are shallow--but they still have standards, just coming from the other direction. What an interesting contradiction."
-MissB-

There really is no contradiction in play here when you consider the distinctions drawn between the grounds for exercising “standards” of belief. The below quote was written when I first began exploring these differences, and how an entire culture can be created possessing self-destructive, self-imploding tendencies as a result of incorrect grounds for communal "standards."

1. “Because businesses have high standards, therefore, the Church should.”
Absolutely the Church should have standards, however, not on this basis. (And remember, individuals constitute the "Church," not a building or a group per se). We must first recognize that this is often said in the context of the local assembly. Individually, we all form our own standards, so, which ones should we keep and which ones should we discard when stacked up against the corporate offerings? The answer is not always an easy one. This statement is simply an inappropriate comparison, and superficial at best. It is ambiguous as well. What businesses are we referencing here? Not all have noble objectives. Shouldn’t we consider what the objective is before assigning standards of practice? From a rational standpoint, this states that A should adopt X because B has adopted X. Or, in other words, McDonald’s claiming that you should eat their Big Macs daily because Burger King serves Whoppers daily. Logically, this statement lacks foundation, and is actually suspended over nothingness.

2. “How will the world know us if we aren’t different?”
This is possibly the most often used appeal when attempting to prove some arbitrary preference to an audience. The appropriate application of this logic rests on its premise. We should not assume that anything that differentiates a community from another is sufficient grounds for adopting it. Differences can be explicitly expressed, but it must first be based on some principle truth. This is so that communities can maintain the standard faithfully in spite of differences in cultural norms, personal beliefs, or other influential factors. What was the differentiating mark for the Christian faith? I believe it was simply love towards one another.

3. “Because leadership has a right to set the standard.”
This actually depends on the nature of the community. If it is an organization maintaining standards to hold their constituents accountable, then in most cases, yes. If it is the body of Christ, perhaps we should reevaluate the scriptures to see if the standards have already been established. We must remember that the structure of the early church was vastly different than the American model we are familiar with. Therefore, choosing to be part of a fellowship or organization is a choice, not a necessity. Without going over certain scriptures that are repeatedly manipulated to ensure this seat of arbitrary authority, I will approach this from a purely rational perspective. The body of Christ is primarily constrained by two things: Christ’s love, and our reciprocation and obedience to that love. The issue that compromises this essential fabric is clearly stated in scripture, sin. Outside of these parameters, any tradition that leadership places on par with real moral judgment, results in effectively creating an unnecessary situation in which one’s faith could actually be jeopardized by disobedience to that tradition. In my opinion, leaders will be held accountable for explicitly defining these standards of righteousness on the basis of their accuracy, and their real relevance to Biblical truth, not just noble intentions. In addition, if one decides to follow another individual, that leader should be held accountable to the same moral code as well. In the context of Christianity, many people learn under a minister within some local assembly, but both parties should keep in mind that they are ultimately accountable to the truths of God’s word, not each other’s formulations or subjective interpretations of it. So should one submit to extra-biblical traditions within an assembly of believers? If one wants to participate in the community, yes. But I will go on record for saying that not all traditions are healthy, and it is up to the participant to determine their consequences. There should be a mutual understanding between the leader and followers that the reasons for such traditions are for the benefit of the community, and are subject to amendment if their consequences prove otherwise.

4. “Because this standard is based on scripture and truth.”
This is the most potent reason for compliance of standards in my opinion. If one can convince another that this is most certainly the case, then the tradition will be embraced religiously to the extent that it may be very near impossible to reverse the belief. Before making a moral judgment, one must understand the basics of what makes it valid. According to the standard theory, (derived from Kantian ethics, utilitarian ethics, and Judeo-Christian ethics), moral judgment must require three elements to be considered valid and logically defensible (as discussed by Shaw and Barry in "Moral Issues in Business").
1. It must be based on logic.
2. It must be based on fact.
3. It must be based on accepted moral principles.
Many of the truths in the Bible hold these basic rules as we understand them. In fact, it is from the writings of the Bible that we understand the framework of these principles. Proving assertions that traditions or standards are based on truth under these maxims requires critical thought. That is why, in my opinion, many people simply go along with the weak logic that is conditioned into their mind, in spite of its inconsistency with their real-world experiences. Morality need not be confined to a religious setting. As a rule, moral standards always take precedence over other standards.

Conclusion: I believe some attempt to standardize righteousness, holiness and truth by their own performances, a specific dress code, and a harsh disciplined lifestyle. They choose to conform to the standards of some membership in an effort to belong to a particular community. In doing so, many religious bodies have been guilty of teaching heretical doctrines, doctrines that blatantly oppose the scriptures. It no doubt displeases God when people measure another’s spirituality by traditions of men, which according to some, btw, end up placing our Lord Jesus in the category of sinners. However, what I believe God honors most, what He has been trying to tell us for some 2000 years, is that we should follow Him according to His life; because God has already become the standard...in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the ultimate Christian standard. "Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34) Make no mistake my friends, there are more Christians taking up their cross and following Christ, than just the ones you smile at sitting beside you in the pew.