Interesting - I don't see anybody standing up. Are you sure that none of you reading this are legalists or divisive people? Or is it that nobody fits those categories?
Let's start with legalism. One problem is what does it mean? If a Christian condemns another because they don't listen to the right style of music or use the correct Bible translation or have their hair too long or are not observing the Sabbath on the correct day, are they being legalistic? Or to be a legalist do you have to go beyond judging and have to make those issues a salvation issue?
That's why nobody will claim to be a legalist. It may be that they don't believe they are being legalistic but rather that they are trying to stand for truth. With the examples used above, they may be convicted that a rock beat is Satanic, or that some translations (more accurately, most translations) are using corrupted texts, or that the NT deals with men wearing long hair, or that God desires us, whether Jew or Gentile, to set aside the 7th Day.
Allow me to say that people who have these convictions have reasons for them. The thing after the last thing I should do is to criticize them for those convictions. Rather, I should applaud when they live out their convictions.
However, those convictions are not my convictions. I might have different convictions. If so, I need to do two things... no, let me say I need to do one thing and avoid the other thing. What I need to do is to live out my convictions. The thing I need to reject is expecting others to live my convictions. If I make that mistake, I'm being divisive.
I remember years ago reading a post on the internet where the person says he believes all Christians should be united. Thus, he invites all Christians in denominations other than his to leave their groups and join his. Is that the true spirit of unity?
Too often, when we have debates, we accept nothing less than unconditional surrender on the other side, while we don't have to give up a thing. I read a book on worship where the author said that those who prefer contemporary worship music should give preference to those who prefer the traditional style. No problem with that, but did the author do the right thing and expect those with traditional preferences to give preference to the contemporaries? Uh, no. He actually ended the book with a list of things contemporaries should give up, such as using overheads and instead returning to hymnals.
My hope is that those who are divisive are unaware of that tendency. It would be a shame for them to know they're causing division and not care. No, it wouldn't be a shame; it would be a sin.
Yes, God wants us to be likeminded, but does that mean we're to be copies of each other? Didn't God create us different for His purposes?
Have you encountered someone who had legalistic tendencies or was divisive? Do you have any of those characteristics that you may be blind to? How do we promote true Christian liberty without tolerating what Scripture clearly states is false doctrine and/or ungodly living?
No comments:
Post a Comment