Con-to-Lib "Hybrid" Churches: Let's be Honest

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by CAD/JPY

This is turning into a great discussion. Aquila, I can see your points on the 10 commandments, and as intriguing as it would be to reference only that as sin... I don't know how I can get my head around Sis. Jones.

Sis. Jones truly believes she will commit a sin if she wears pants. Now, lets assume that for God, a woman wearing pants is not a sin. However, Sis. Jones truly believes it is a sin... yet she proceeds to wear pants! Thus in her heart, she has made a decision to commit what she believes is a sin before God.

Even if God says "A woman wearing pants is not sin and Mrs. Jones you did not sin by simply wearing a pair of pants". How can it not be sin for Mrs. Jones to decide in her heart to transgress what she believes is a Law of God??? Would not this bring us back to the first commandment of Love the Lord your God, with all your soul, mind, strength, AND HEART?

This is the scenario that I am having difficulty with....

Good stuff CAD.

I’d have to ask, why Sis. Jones believes she’s sinning before God by wearing pants? Did someone along the way “add” to the Word of God? What about Sis. Smith? She was raised in an Apostolic church where wearing pants isn’t considered a sin. Dose God judge sisters Jones and Smith by different standards? Will he refuse to judge them impartially and equally or will God hold Sister Jones to an unbiblical standard based on her own heart’s personal feelings? Does sin shift from being sin from one church or person to another? If so, can your children say, “Well dad, that’s a sin for you… but not for me.”? When it comes to sin sisters Smith and Jones have no say… sin is sin. One may BELIEVE that something is a sin and discover upon thorough study of the Bible or perhaps even in Heaven that it wasn’t. David once indicated that if our hearts condemn us there is one greater than our hearts. One’s own heart can condemn them over something done that is now under the blood… and it can also condemn them over something that isn’t against God. What if a Trinitarian sincerely believes that Oneness is a heresy, does their faith make believing in Oneness a sin for them? If they go against what they believe to be the revealed will of God and be baptized in Jesus name, will they have sinned? I’m a little shocked at how relative and arbitrary we’ve become when defining sin. Sin is a sin for one person but not another? God has different rules for everyone based on the individual? It’s all shifting sands of uncertainty. If your son says, “Dad, is wearing shorts a sin?” Do you say, “Maybe. What do you think?” Or do you say, “No son, I don’t believe it’s a sin. However, shorts can be immodest so as a Christian discipline we don’t wear them.”? Or one could say, “No, shorts aren’t a sin son – just keep them modest.” I find it interesting that we’ve diluted the definition of sin to fit the individual. Why? I suspect that it’s to appease the legalists among us. Bro. Jones believes not wearing a head covering is sin. Bro. Smith doesn’t. So, instead of confronting false teaching Bro. Smith says, “Well, that’s a sin for Bro. Jones and his church but not us.” In doing this we take the shift from the Word of God and the revealed Law of God to what individuals think. We descend into writing our own rules based on personal feelings.

If one loves the Lord their God with all their heart, will they not seek out his Word? If they choose not to wear pants because they believe it’s more modest to wear long skirts they are following Christian principles and discipline… but they go beyond the Word of God to label women wearing pants a sin.

Remember “sin” is a Heaven or Hell issue. When we stand before God he’s not going to say, “Hmmm. Geeeee, what do you think? How do you feel about this?” No. God will judge according to His Holiness. And His Holiness is revealed in the Law of the LORD.

[GrowingPains]

We got a little off-topic. So judging from another thread, Grace Church of Humble left UPC in 1998, they can be added to this conversation as well. 2 ministers from Michigan have joined staff there. Anyone know the condition of the church they left (I assume Pontiac)? Condition of the youth group?

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

We got a little off-topic. So judging from another thread, Grace Church of Humble left UPC in 1998, they can be added to this conversation as well. 2 ministers from Michigan have joined staff there. Anyone know the condition of the church they left (I assume Pontiac)? Condition of the youth group?

GP, it is very hard to judge from an outside point of view. Even in my own church situation there are those who would say that our situation ended up pretty bad but that is from their perspective. I have seen pastors get on here and talk about how families and churches were destroyed. The truth is that with change there is alway pain but out of that struggle is a great learning and beauty that takes place. From my perspective I see a growing healthy church and folks who are happier and would never go back to the way things were before.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

GP, it is very hard to judge from an outside point of view. Even in my own church situation there are those who would say that our situation ended up pretty bad but that is from their perspective. I have seen pastors get on here and talk about how families and churches were destroyed. The truth is that with change there is alway pain but out of that struggle is a great learning and beauty that takes place. From my perspective I see a growing healthy church and folks who are happier and would never go back to the way things were before.

Perhaps a first-hand account there would be helpful.

[*AQuietPlace*]

GP, you've mentioned 'youth group' a few times. What are your concerns? Do you feel that going more 'liberal' will be detrimental to the youth group? Do you feel that being more conservative helps the youth?

I have very mixed feelings on this. I've seen way too many ultra-conservative youth groups that were very, very, very carnal. Full of fornication and hypocrisy.

I'm concerned about my own children... they are so frustrated by the 'rules' that it seems to put them farther away from God. One of my teen sons in particular seems to feel that God is a frowny God who doesn't want anyone to have any fun. He told me the other day - "I wish you could serve God and be happy, too." THAT bothers me extremely.

I do share your concern that removing a lot of the rules could cause my kids to lose their balance, and maybe go too far the other way. When your foundation has been 'the rules', a new foundation has to be built.

I'm spending a lot of time in prayer about this. I don't know the answers, but in my opinion the legalism has been very damaging to our youth. I can't speak from the other side of the fence since I've not been there.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

GP, you've mentioned 'youth group' a few times. What are your concerns? Do you feel that going more 'liberal' will be detrimental to the youth group? Do you feel that being more conservative helps the youth?

I have very mixed feelings on this. I've seen way too many ultra-conservative youth groups that were very, very, very carnal. Full of fornication and hypocrisy.

I'm concerned about my own children... they are so frustrated by the 'rules' that it seems to put them farther away from God. One of my teen sons in particular seems to feel that God is a frowny God who doesn't want anyone to have any fun. He told me the other day - "I wish you could serve God and be happy, too." THAT bothers me extremely.

I do share your concern that removing a lot of the rules could cause my kids to lose their balance, and maybe go too far the other way. When your foundation has been 'the rules', a new foundation has to be built.

I'm spending a lot of time in prayer about this. I don't know the answers, but in my opinion the legalism has been very damaging to our youth. I can't speak from the other side of the fence since I've not been there.

No, I'm referring to the transition. Many die during this. Many casualties. I think even without the church's "rules", mommy and daddy have a huge role to play with household "standards" that they create as a home, and daddy does as the priest of the home.

It's the transition though that reveals fully the shallowness of what they thought was a deep relationship (not all, but many). They also begin to question everything from the existence in God to the credibility of their own family to have "been wrong this whole time." Their world is topsy-turvy. As a result, I've noticed many youth groups going through this not turn toward holiness, but turn to extreme carnality, flaunting their new liberties like a parade and creating a culture in the church that is not what the decision intended.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

No, I'm referring to the transition. Many die during this. Many casualties. I think even without the church's "rules", mommy and daddy have a huge role to play with household "standards" that they create as a home, and daddy does as the priest of the home.

It's the transition though that reveals fully the shallowness of what they thought was a deep relationship (not all, but many). They also begin to question everything from the existence in God to the credibility of their own family to have "been wrong this whole time." Their world is topsy-turvy. As a result, I've noticed many youth groups going through this not turn toward holiness, but turn to extreme carnality, flaunting their new liberties like a parade and creating a culture in the church that is not what the decision intended.

To me, this is one of the great tragedies of legalism in the first place. It makes for a very shaky foundation.

I'm spending a lot of time right now talking to my kids. Discussing the rules, where they came from, whether they are biblically based, or just man-made. If they were necessary for a certain time period, but are not biblically required. What the Bible requires will never change, but our man-made rules will change. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's necessary to know the difference.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

To me, this is one of the great tragedies of legalism in the first place. It makes for a very shaky foundation.

I'm spending a lot of time right now talking to my kids. Discussing the rules, where they came from, whether they are biblically based, or just man-made. If they were necessary for a certain time period, but are not biblically required. What the Bible requires will never change, but our man-made rules will change. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's necessary to know the difference.

And it's critical daddy/mommy and pastor are on same page, or we imprint on our kid's spirit, of mistrust of leadership. So this is done with a careful scapel. On the same hand, I know many UC youth that have a legitimate walk with God, so these things are not generalities. But you are correct that legalism, or at the least, unbiblical teaching about how we should live, creates a disconnect between the Holy Spirit's work of Justification in the life of the believer and the believer. We agree to the danger in the first place.

But it's now like the young man in The Christmas Story that put his tongue upon a frozen lamppost. To get it off, one can't just pull quickly away, it's quite the process if you want to inflict the least amount of pain.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

No, I'm referring to the transition. Many die during this. Many casualties. I think even without the church's "rules", mommy and daddy have a huge role to play with household "standards" that they create as a home, and daddy does as the priest of the home.

It's the transition though that reveals fully the shallowness of what they thought was a deep relationship (not all, but many). They also begin to question everything from the existence in God to the credibility of their own family to have "been wrong this whole time." Their world is topsy-turvy. As a result, I've noticed many youth groups going through this not turn toward holiness, but turn to extreme carnality, flaunting their new liberties like a parade and creating a culture in the church that is not what the decision intended.

This is typical of most young people growing up in legalistic churches. I am hearing stories from even liberal UPC and ALJC churches of youth who have no hope in anything. They feel like they are hellbound no matter what they do so why try anyway. As a former youth pastor in a UPC church I have youth contact me with their hopelessness frequently. This is the opposite of what the gospel should bring to the hearts of young people.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

This is typical of most young people growing up in legalistic churches. I am hearing stories from even liberal UPC and ALJC churches of youth who have no hope in anything. They feel like they are hellbound no matter what they do so why try anyway. As a former youth pastor in a UPC church I have youth contact me with their hopelessness frequently. This is the opposite of what the gospel should bring to the hearts of young people.

Delta, sorry bud, but you thrive at blanket generalities. It's not enough to throw all cons under the bus, you seem to shoot for the entire UPC and ALJC. Remember that young people are often times kids... that makes a huge difference as they experiment with authority and impositions in their life. Many teenagers struggle and many also thrive. Hopefully your counsel is helping them thrive.

Feel like they're hellbound? What are they doing that makes them feel so unsure of their salvation? Maybe a healthy feeling of conviction of part of that "fear and trembling" and making our "calling and election sure."