From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Subject: Re: Returning to secular music
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:36:43 GMT

In article <nestabro.724347804@nova> nestabro@nova.gmi.edu (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>danielg@med.unc.edu (Daniel G. Sinclair) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec11.173416.25963@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>Wow, what a major bummer.  Sorry to be nosy, but I didn't quite catch the
>>description of the 'unchristian' activity.  Was it reading sf/fantasy?  Or
>>something really unmentionable like going to secular concerts or *gasp*
>>dancing?  Being in leadership is kinda funny.  Somehow you are expected to
>>keep up a certain image as to not offend nobody. 

>I think this is as it should be when in leadership.  Scripture says 
>elders are to be above reproach.  If a certain number consider a certain
>act reproachful, then, because of our freedom, we should feel free to
>refrain from it.

The idea of "not causing a brother/sister to stumble" is actually a lot
more complex than that.  It certainly seems to mean that, when in the 
presence of said brother or sister, a Christian should refrain from
any activity that would cause that person offense.  It's not as clear
that the same concept applies when *not* in the presence of that
brother or sister (e.g., if a pastor wants to have a brew in the
privacy of his/her own home, or in the company of brothers and 
sisters who are *not* offended).  Furthermore, it's almost impossible 
to *not* offend some segment of the church, no matter what you do.
The same pastor who totally refrains from drinking alcoholic beverages
may be viewed as a prude and/or legalist by other members of the
church. 

Certain acts are clearly stated to be sinful in the Bible.  In the
absence of clear commands, however, many actions and behaviors need to 
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  In general, it's a good idea
to be sensitive to others and to strive not to cause offense.  It's
also a good idea for people to give others some slack in areas that
are not clearly labeled as sinful, and to not *take* offense.  

>>dancing bone).  But I ask you, what kind of message do we really give them
>>by being legalistic and prudish?
>
>Hmmm, prudish.  Be holy just as I am Holy, says the Lord.  If that's 
>being legalistic and prudish, so be it.  It always amazes me that (although
>they condemn people who practice a more "button-down" Christianity as 
>being legalistic and prudish) many of the non-button-down type do the 
>exact same thing to those who follow a different path.  Interesting.

If churches insist on formulating rules and regulations in areas where 
the Bible provides no such rules and regulations, then it seems legitimate
to call such activity legalistic and prudish.  Non-legalistic churches
certainly have their own problems, chief among which is the tendency
toward license and conformity with the world.  It's always a struggle.
And it *needs* to be a struggle, day by day, situation by situation.
But rules and regulations aren't the answer.

>Sometimes I like to say, 'yeah, I want
>>to show them that as a Christian you can love God, be pure (they can tell
>>by my speech and kindness), and still be free from 'rules and regs'
>>Christianity.  They've seen enough fundies, so they know that 'Christians'
>>don't drink, don't cuss, and don't chew.  Maybe they would be changed by
>>seeing freedom.'
>
>Changed by your freedom to drink, cuss and chew?  Yeah, I have the freedom
>to do those things, but I'm not sure that represents a changed life to the
>world.  Scripture tells us we are "new creations".  Can a new creation
>continue in the same things done before that creation?

I doubt that Daniel intended his remarks to be interpreted as an
encouragement to drink, cuss, and chew (chew what?).  His point is
(I think) that non-Christians aren't necessarily impressed by
Christians whose lives are characterized by a series of activities
that they *don't* do.  They need to see something more - maybe 
something positive.  Even as a *Christian* I'm not interested in
Christianity by subtraction and negation.  I find even less reason
to understand why the world would be impressed by it.  

>Also, what is being free from "rules and regs" supposed to be.  I heard a
>saying once (in fact, I'm gonna put it in my sig for a while) that 
>freedom isn't the ability to do what you want, it's the responsibility to
>do what you ought.  God put those "rules and regs" in Scripture for us to
>follow in order to attain to a holy life, not to make us legalistic.  I
>agree, if you follow "rules" just to be following them, then that is
>legalism and wrong.  If, howevr, you follow them because you love God
>and want to please Him by doing what he commands of us, then that is
>far from legalism.  John MacArthur had a wonderful tape series on this
>back in the severnties that I just listened to a couple of weeks ago.  He
>has an insight into the word that is amazing.

If you're following the "rules and regs" in Scripture, then no problem.
But if you extend those "rules and regs" to cover areas that the
Bible does not cover, or where the Bible presents general principles
that have *always* been interpreted differently in the lives of 
individual believers, then there's a problem.  

>My desire is for my life to be such that NO one in the world can say, "yeah,
>right, he's a Christian, look, he does so and so".  It is pursuit of being
>blameless.  And if someone in the world rejects the message of Christ (not
>me) because I am following the Word of God, then that is not my 
>responsibility, it is theirs.

I think it's great that you desire to lead a blameless life.  And I
also think that there are areas where some segments of the church
assign blame where they should have never assigned blame.  Some 
examples - oh, rock 'n roll, drinking a beer, dancing, playing cards -
the whole fundie package.  I believe that I should strive to be 
blameless too.  But if there is to be blame, I want it to be based
on the Word of God, not on what some uptight Reverend pronounced
to be shameful back in the days of the temperance movement, or on
what some racist minister decreed when white boys started making
music that sounded a lot like those uppity black folks.  

>>*don't* want to be part of stale Christian culture (the old one - I really
>>belive that a new Christian culture is sweeping in to replace the old)
>
>Again, just because somebody dresses in a suit and tie and keeps himself
>looking neat makes him stale?  and his Christianity stale?  Come on.
>
>BTW, I myself am not a bastion of neat grooming habits.  My hair is 
>considered long by most and I quite often teach my Sunday school class
>(young marrieds) wearing jeans.  However, if the leadership came to me
>and said they thought I should look a little better to teach, I would
>obey their request because they have authority over me.  I don't
>consider them stale just because they wear suits.  You talk about 
>judgmental...

Good points, and I agree.  

>>	2. what activities should leadership refrain from?
>
>Anything that would cause believers under that leadership to stumble.
>In a large congregation, there could be significant amount of believers
>who stumble over many things (secular music, drinking, etc).  As a 
>leader accountable for the training of those believers, we are under
>obligation to remove those things from our life that may cause others
>to stumble, not out of legalism or begrudgement, but, as Paul says, "so
>that I may win more to Christ".  Once they've been won, then let the
>Spirit lead them, but don't give them something to stumble over before
>they're mature enough to handle it.

Okay. But again, there may be a difference between how one behaves
in the presence of these believers and how one behaves with others
who do not stumble over these things.

>>	3. what sort of image should we portray? (to drink or not to
>>	drink.  to dance or not to dance.  to wear nice clothes or not
>>	to.)
>
>Again, see above.
>
>>	4. does anyone else see the new culture rising?
>
>Not really.  Believers are always going to shine a little light.  In the
>60's, the "hippies" got their Jesus communes together and they collapsed
>because of exercising too much freedom and not exercising enough control.

That's *waaaay* too simple.  I was there.  A lot of the Jesus Movement
churches collapsed precisely because there was *too much* control.
Some of them were downright cultish.  Others transformed themselves
as their members grew up, got jobs, and had kids.  Still others
continued more or less intact (Reba Place in Evanston, Illinois, is
a good example, as is L'Abri in Switzerland).  

I lived in a Christian community in the inner city of Columbus for
eight years.  And I saw some amazingly wonderful things done there,
both within the church and in the community at large.  But it's
gone now (well, actually it's mutated into a Vineyard church, but
that's another story).  What happened?  People grew up.  They got
married.  They had kids.  They got real jobs.  And in the face of
daily burglaries and rapes, a lot of people decided that it just 
wasn't worth the risk.  

The "exercising too much freedom" line doesn't even begin to tell
the story.  

>>Respectfully and full of hope,
>
>Ditto.
>
>--
>Noel Estabrook			|	Knowledge without action is like
>nestabro@nova.gmi.edu         --|--     snow on a hot stove.
>Instructional Design & Tech.    |     
>Michigan State University       |               Romans 12:2

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpn!ajw  or
ajw@cblpn.att.com