1. The first method views the personal views and attitudes of people that have challenged the status quo and have left the church. In this evaluation usually the individual who has left the church because of holiness standards or other sectarian issues is said to be liberal or ‘free spirited’ that lack the moral integrity that everyone concedes is a part of holiness. Often you will hear someone say, “So and so left a status quo (legalistic) church and today he or she is a drunkard etc.” This method of evaluation causes those that are unhappy with aspects of apostolic teachings much trepidation and caution as they usually hear only the filtered and often distorted reports of the personal failures of only those who have left the organization or group. 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. It is also important to understand that the flaws that reformers may have do not negate the truths they embrace. This is supported by the fact that most of the writers of the Bible, including the apostles were far from moral perfection. All reformers have this element of being able to see truth, embrace it against the majority even while saddled with imperfections of their own and head that way regardless of the cost.
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. 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. They feel like the man with a headache who said, "It hurts to keep it but I can’t cut it off either.” We hear Christians say that they would die for religion when the reality is that many are dying from their religion! They feel like they are on a treadmill of endless effort and performance. And the more they are told to pray, the more they feel they need to pray, and so forth. The more they give, the more they are told to give more. For many it becomes a nightmare of obsessive compulsion because they are trying to be something they are not and they keep trying to give parts of themselves that is not in their possession or ability to give! 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.
With a performance emphasis on holiness, grace becomes a just a "word" instead of the refreshing balm of healing oil that God wants to apply. An emphasis on personal performance doesn’t sound like the "easy yoke" and "light burden" that Jesus promised to give us. Neither does it sound like the "truth" that has set us free. It sounds more like religion adopting the pattern of The US Congress that travels to Washington in order to make more and more rules each year while thinking they are helping us. 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 leave the church wounded and desperate knowing that they don’t have all the answers, but yet, also knowing that their eyes of understanding are now opened to the simple truth that got lost along the way somewhere. In effect, that truth declares that when people are sincerely searching for God in a church, they should not find themselves in a hellish experience instead. Suddenly their eyes should be opened to the grace of Jesus that is woven throughout the gospels like a tapestry of magnificent beauty. But if amazing grace is just a song instead of a liberated life that is consistently preached from the pulpit, there will be no sweet sound that saves those that are lost. People are not looking for a church where people love their doctrine more than they love the God of the Bible and the Christ who still calls people to come to Him to receive undeserved forgiveness and a relationship with God that can only be obtained through an holiness emphasis on God’s grace. If people reject Gods grace, then it’s time to remind them of Gods justice. It is only those that have an evil seed in their heart who would refuse the grace and mercy of God.
Jesus gave his harshest words to the religious “rule obsessed,” and the rest of his words spoke of peace, rest, life, comfort and relationship. What words come to mind when you think of the words Jesus recorded while here on earth. I think of words like; “Peace, I give you, not as the world gives, I give. Not the peace that performance religion promises,” “Come to me if you are weary and overwhelmed and I will give you rest,” “If you take my cross, I’ll help you bear it but if you take the cross of the world or religion, you are on your own.” “Peace, be unto you, be not afraid, and only believe.” “All things are possible if you believe that I alone am the Way, the Truth and the Life and that I have come that you may have the life of a child, a life that is carefree, and trusting in me for the promise of the abundant kingdom of God." But you say what about the purpose of the church and the ministry? If the church and the ministry are attached to the vine and speak the truth in love and talk of the grace that Jesus still provides in these stressful confusing days, then the church will not have to worry about people coming to church and responding to the message of the gospel. And because all saints have a past and all sinners have a future through Jesus Christ alone, therefore there is no need to add unnecessary rules to the gospel. 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.
Reconciling the Two Methods of Evaluating Holiness
1. Pointing at negative failures of free spirited people who may have left your group does not by itself nullify the truth they may have espoused. 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. At this point, it would not be only the free spirited who would moderate their views but you would see a majority shift away from non-scriptural tradition while still preserving the moral commitment so essential to the doctrine of holiness. Interestingly, often those personalities that have a tendency to extremism come back to the center after time when extremisms are removed.
2. 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. And when you stop and think about it in context of what the world considers liberal today; as far as the Christian Church is concerned, when you try to attach the label “liberal” in front of churches identified as Fundamentalist, Evangelical and Pentecostal, the term becomes somewhat of an oxymoron.
Linear Mode
