Avoid Every Appearance of Evil!

When Christian leaders talk about how to live a godly life, they eventually turn to the gray areas—those things that are right for some but wrong for others. You know the list: drinking, smoking, watching R rated movies, playing cards, dancing, using colorful language, listening to Country-Western music (OK—that last one is not a gray area; it should be taboo for everyone), etc. That’s the short list. And the way the instruction on such matters goes is all too often along these lines: First, our freedoms in Christ are articulated, clearly stated, appreciated. Next come the qualifiers: ‘but don’t exercise your freedom in Christ if it will make someone uncomfortable, cause someone to judge you, is not entirely loving, etc.’ This would be bad enough if it just ended there. By the time all the qualifications are stated, the freedoms that we allegedly have are almost all stripped away. Paralysis begins to set in. But the coup de grace comes with a single verse from 1 Thessalonians, utilized as a weapon against all those who enjoy their lives in Christ: “But even if what you do is loving, makes no one uncomfortable, doesn’t cause anyone to judge you, remember that you are responsible to ‘avoid every appearance of evil.’ So, if in doubt, don’t do it.â€
That’s how the verse reads in the KJV: “Avoid every appearance of evil.†It’s 1 Thess 5.22 and it puts a damper on everything. But does it really mean this? Does it really mean that even if something looks like it’s evil to some, we can’t enjoy it? Hardly.
The Greek text really should be translated, “abstain from every form of evil.†There is a genuine correspondence between ‘form’ and ‘evil’: that is, stay away from evil things. But the reason that ‘form’ (or, in the KJV, ‘appearance’) was used is because Paul is speaking about false doctrine. This verse, in fact, was more often attributed to Jesus than to Paul in the early church, suggesting that Paul got this line from his Lord and that it was one of the sayings that for some reason didn’t make it into the gospels but was nevertheless an authentic saying of Jesus. It was used with literal reference to coins; to abstain from every form of evil was to avoid counterfeit teaching. Further, in the context, it seems clear that Paul is speaking about false teaching. Verses 19–22 read as follows:
“Do not quench the Spirit;
Do not despise prophecies;
But examine all things: cling to the good, abstain from every form of evil.â€
In context, Paul is saying that false teaching should be avoided, but true teaching should be what believers follow. They shouldn’t be duped, shouldn’t become gullible, but must test prophets and see whether they are from the Lord. They need to examine all these teachings and cling to the good and throw out the bad.
If we look at the broader context of the New Testament as a whole, we see that Paul was certainly not speaking about avoiding every appearance of evil in 1 Thessalonians 5. His own mission was governed by the mantra, “I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I might save some†(1 Cor 9.22).
Further, consider the life of Jesus. The distinct impression one gets from the gospels is that Jesus simply did not have the same scruples about his associations that the religious leaders of the day had. They avoided the appearance of evil at all costs; Jesus seems almost to have had the opposite approach to life and ministry (see, e.g., Luke 7:39). Even his disciples had been oppressed by all the rules and traditions of men. But Jesus freed them from such nonsense. In Matt 15, the Pharisees were stunned that Jesus’ disciples did not perform the Jewish hand-washing ritual before they ate. They hammered on the disciples and on Jesus for not obeying the oral commandments. Jesus did not say, “Sorry, boys. I didn’t mean to cause offense. It won’t happen again.†Instead, he very boldly pointed out that these religious leaders had exchanged the laws of God for their own self-made rules. He called them hypocrites who had no heart for God. The most remarkable verse in this whole pericope is verse 12: Jesus’ disciples came to their Master and said, “Did you know that the Pharisees were offended by what you just said?†Didn’t they know that offending the Pharisees was part of Jesus’ job description!
To wield 1 Thess 5.22 as a weapon to restrict a believer’s personal freedom is against the general tenor of the New Testament and of the Lord’s life in particular. Ironically, to avoid every appearance of evil is far more in keeping with the Pharisees’ model of righteousness than with Jesus’! I like John Piper’s notion of ‘Christian hedonism’ for it falls in line with the Westminster Confession’s statement that our prime objective is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Gee, maybe that’s what the Christian faith is all about? What a novel concept!
There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.
Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Avoid Every Appearance of Evil!
- The Rise of the Christian Sub-culture and the Crying of the Rocks
- The Gospels: Embarrassingly Authentic?
- Pauline Scatology
- Some Thoughts on the Great Commission - Part One

Vitali Zagorodnov on 20 Feb 2008 at 12:17 am #
Thank you, Dan. You guys should have more posts on this. Feel like these truths need to be repeated again and again and again, as we keep constantly getting back to legalism.
Btw, I must say I was greatly encouraged by the story of your illness.
Nathan on 20 Feb 2008 at 12:58 am #
Thank goodness. It’s nice to see someone interpret that verse correctly.
I just posted about gambling and sin…I’m a bit of a poker player. 10 years ago I would have probably got my head ripped off, but Christians seem to be chilling about issues within the adiaphora.
http://nathangann.com/?p=140
Cheers.
JoanieD on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:24 am #
Thanks, Dan. I am very happy to see that passage explained correctly. I also love your, “…our prime objective is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Gee, maybe that’s what the Christian faith is all about? What a novel concept!” Wonderful!
Joanie D.
Lisa R on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:44 am #
Yes and this post points to another novel concept…context. If only others would catch on. Great post, Dr. Wallace.
Although, I will say that I don’t think our liberties entirely absolves us of conscientiousness of our actions (I Cor 8; Rom 14:14-22). We have freedom, yes but don’t these verses suggest that we still have to be mindful of how our actions might impact others, particularly the weaker brother or sister?
dac on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:33 am #
Since everything revolves around emergents these days, it is the first thing I thought of with “false doctrine”.
I identify myself as an Evangelical, and certainly appreciate some (D. Kimball, M. Driscoll, CMP) who get lumped into the “eeevvviiillll” emergent group.
Having said that, I do not call myself emerging or emergent because it has so closely be tied to people like DP and BM and Rob Bell (even though I don’t hate the Nooma vids), all of whom I feel at times, have left the orthodox ranch and engage in “false doctrine”.
Much is the same with Fundamentalism - I agree on many issues, but those that put “Fundi” in Fundamentalism have destroyed that identifier. I will not willing associated with the hyper legalism, nor be tied to that “false doctrine”
While I am willing to talk and discuss the issues with emergents and fundis, much as I am with Mormons, JW’s, Catholics, I do not identify myself with them (or as one) because of their false doctrine.
So I am content with defending evangelicalism as being the correct place for Christians to land.
and Lisa ? - I would not call it a novel concept - simply a biblical concept, one abused by “fundis” in their attempt to impose a false legalistic standard on Christians.
Lisa R on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:44 am #
dac, I was being sarcastic
Connie @ Practicing Theology on 20 Feb 2008 at 9:11 am #
Amen, Country & Western music is NOT a gray area–it’s just plain wrong! Ha!
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Feb 2008 at 11:39 am #
Another fine post Professor Dan. You wrote:
“But the reason that ‘form’ (or, in the KJV, ‘appearance’) was used is because Paul is speaking about false doctrine. … was nevertheless an authentic saying of Jesus. It was used with literal reference to coins; to abstain from every form of evil was to avoid counterfeit teaching.
In context, Paul is saying that false teaching should be avoided, but true teaching should be what believers follow.”
Question. What do you think of postmodern/emergent teaching that one cannot or should not discern between true teaching and false teaching because one is UNCERTAIN about what is true teaching and what is false teaching? Or what would you say to someone who teaches or believes that it’s a fruitless and ultimately divisive exercise to discern or judge what is true teaching because epistemologically, one is ultimately uncertain as to what is true or false doctrine in the Bible?
Taking it a step further, would you say that the postmodern/emergent teaching of taking an uncertain, doubtful approach to many Biblical truths and doctrines is a FALSE teaching?
dac on 20 Feb 2008 at 11:55 am #
lisa
my bad - obviously humor impaired today.
TUAD
Got any other soap boxes you climb on ever?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Feb 2008 at 12:06 pm #
Dear DAC,
Please do not minimize or derail my questions to Professor Dan by casting aspersions upon my character.
My questions to Professor Wallace, and by extension to CMP, are absolutely foundational and critical to the careful examination of postmodern/emergent teaching and ethos.
It is of utmost importance to discern whether there is false teaching in postmodern emergers, and as such, it is directly on-topic and relevant to Professor Wallace’s excellent post about properly exegeting 1 Thess 5:22 as meaning that Christians are to avoid false teaching.
Pax.
P.S. I like your post in #6.
Ruben on 20 Feb 2008 at 1:12 pm #
Thanks for that, it really saddens me to see evangelical teaching focus primarily on the epistles and put the Gospels as secondary (sometimes we completely lose focus on our Lord and how He was). Also the archaic language of the King James lends itself to so much mis-interpretation.
Alyssa on 20 Feb 2008 at 1:43 pm #
Woo-hoo! I’m going to smoke on the way to an R-Rated movie!
Totally Kidding. Everyone? I’m kidding.
In all seriousness, I see this “better safe than sorry” mentality frequently and it makes me wonder. Because it doesn’t look to me like there was much safe about Christ’s walk on earth. So is it really safe to eschew more “fun stuff” than we think we “have to”? It seems to me the pharisees had that plan and it didn’t work. They clearly missed the point. I’ve known myself to get so into the rules that I miss the point, too. For me now, making sure I get the point even if I’m not clear on the rules is being “better safe than sorry.”
My grandmother would cry if she read this post, by the way. How would she explain that Michael W. Smith APPEARED just like the devil’s music? Or that if we WENT to the movie theater, people would THINK we were seeing an R-rated movie and that would be “the appearance of evil”? Poor grandma.
Susan on 20 Feb 2008 at 2:42 pm #
Oh Dan, I thought Texans liked country music (!?)….I guess you can take a surfer from the beach, but you can’t force country on him (THANKFULLY)!
And, personally, thankful that “appearances of evil” doesn’t mean we have to be WORRIED about what others think. A BETTER FILTER would be to consider what GOD thinks of my actions, words, and thoughts anyway.
And a little aside on the Jewish legalism…I stopped some orthodox Jews walking, as they always do (because driving is work?), through the neighborhood on the Sabbath recently. They were dressed in full robes, hats and tail coats. I wanted to take their picture so I asked. One said: “No, because today is our Sabbath”….”….but, if you had taken it before you asked….” I might have pointed out that I’D be doing the work…but I didn’t.
At least I know how to go about it next time!
Another of the older Jewish men in the neighborhood is in a wheelchair now, and I’ve noticed that he has apparently hired a non-Jewish neighbor to push him to Temple on Sundays. Thank the Lord that He has freed us from the yolk of this sort of law keeping!
Alyssa, sympathies to your granny….I’ve had some dealings along those lines as well (perpetuated by Oral Roberts I believe).
Susan on 20 Feb 2008 at 2:47 pm #
Dan, I’m also wondering why your hat, on the “undercover” photo Has BMW, instead of DBW on it?
wife and mother on 20 Feb 2008 at 2:50 pm #
Okay…I know from reading these websites that as soon as I say anything remotely resembling fundamentalism, I’m gonna get circled by a pack of wolves….but I’ll comment/ask anyway. I was raised with a heavy fundamental background and you don’t walk away from that very easily. My husband and I have had numerous conversations on this very topic and never really seem to get anywhere. I understand that men can enforce so many rules and standards that no one can measure up… I get that. What I simply cannot wrap my mind around is how you make the jump from legalism to an out and out free for all.
Take 2 Peter 2. What does that mean? If God “delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversations of the wicked, (For the righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) {I know, it’s KJV - let’s just overlook that for now} …what does that mean? Movies with nudity for example….is it godly to watch naked people having sex? Is that within the beauty of sex that God intended?
I am not trying to start a riot ~ I truly do not get it.
Try not to bash …just try to explain…
Pastor4all on 20 Feb 2008 at 2:54 pm #
Before I came to Christ and became a pastor, I was a professional drummer. I can thus say, with real authority, that while country music may not send you to hell, playing it makes you feel like you are there–a little humor there, folks.
Dr. Wallace, I always appreciate your insights. And isn’t it great, folks, to read a great scholar who also has a great sense of humor?!
Excuse me, now. I’m off to the cigar shop, then to blockbusters to get an “R” rated video, while I enjoy a 6-pack tonight! Blessings to all
Lisa R on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:17 pm #
Wife and mother, I can’t speak for others but I think the issue is about motivation for what we do. I would not construe the comments mentioned here as a licensed for a free for all. We are still constrained by the gospel and live to please the Lord. If that is our motivation, it should result in behavior that will bring glory to Him. And sometimes, that may even mean upsetting man-made laws. Consider the evangelist who will partake of a pint in the pub to reach the lost. But if we are more concerned about “appearances” and following a prescribed list of do’s and don’ts than about souls, then perhaps that would suggest a man-pleasing motive.
I think the intent of the post was to show how 1) how this passage has been misintepreted and used to support man-centered laws, and 2) to consider our consciousness of appearance, as some have used this passage, in context of Jesus’ ministry, who definately upset some legalistic applecarts. And moreover, the freedom He has brought us.
C Michael Patton on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:45 pm #
To quote Bono, the theologian, “Its the stuff, its the stuff of country soungs. But I guess it gives us something to go on.”
Dan, you are missing out my friend.
Josh on 20 Feb 2008 at 5:22 pm #
Michael,
Totally off topic, but I have been curious of this for a while and I haven’t been able to find it from the internet.
A while back, in one of your blogs about the Christian mind and how it is important to engage difficult issues that require hard thinking. You used a quote from Jonathan Edwards which said to the effect:
“God calls by the heart, but He will not do so without the mind.”
And I was wondering where (which book, sermon etc) you got that from and where at within it (i.e the book/sermon).
Thanks, sorry for going off topic lol.
-Josh
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Feb 2008 at 5:33 pm #
“Dan, you are missing out my friend.”
CMP, perhaps your friend, Professor Dan, is having a lot of fun pondering how to respond to the honest questions I asked in comment #8.
Perhaps this will shorten the response time. Professor Wallace, you pick a biblical doctrine of your own choosing that you consider non-negotiable.
Then, in addition to the questions above in #8, what do you think of postmodern/emergent teaching that either directly or indirectly obscures, obfuscates, and/or creates doubt and uncertainty about your non-negotiable biblical doctrine? Would you consider that true teaching or false teaching since this postmodern/emergent movement could or actually does materially affect the acceptance of your chosen non-negotiable doctrine?
James 3:1 is an important consideration.
Dan Wallace on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:14 pm #
Folks, I haven’t been pondering, wrestling with, rejecting, or ignoring any of your comments. It’s just that I do have a day-job. If I don’t respond to you immediately, it’s because I know that computers are of the devil and I only pay him his dues for brief episodes throughout the day!
TUAP, I think I’ve spent a good deal of time answering your questions in other blogs. This blog was about our freedom in Christ, not about drawing lines in the sand. That too should be done, and I’m sympathetic with your concerns, but this is not the place for it.
Susan, my cap said BMW because I don’t avoid the appearance of being a bimmerphile. I admit it; I’m hooked, and have been for 20 years.
Michael, my guess is that you’re not aware that the cities in which C&W is the most prominent have the highest suicide rates. No doubt you will quote to me Samuel Clemens’ famous line, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics,” or in one of your more sophisticated moments say, “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” To all of this I say, “I don’t care whether my logic is flawed or not. I won’t listen to the twang that adds lyrics to cheesy one-liners and soap operas.”
To all who ask about our freedom in Christ, of course it must be tempered by our concern for weaker brothers and sisters. But we should understand that a weaker brother is someone who would be TEMPTED to do what we are doing yet not have a good conscience about it; a weaker brother is not someone who would judge us for exercising freedom. That person is a legalist. When it comes to R rated movies, there are more kinds than just the “adult content” kinds. Lucky Number Slevin, for example. Or Untouchables, Silence of the Lambs, Terminator 2, Gladiator. Bad language and high body count also can constitute a darn good R rated movie.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:32 pm #
This blog was about our freedom in Christ, not about drawing lines in the sand. That too should be done, and I’m sympathetic with your concerns, but this is not the place for it.
Honestly, when you wrote, “In context, Paul is saying that false teaching should be avoided, but true teaching should be what believers follow” I truly thought your blog post did touch in some way on Apostle Paul’s exhortation to Christians to draw a line in the sand between true teaching and false teaching.
Thank you Professor Wallace for being sympathetic to my concerns. Please let me know when and where might be the right time and place to discuss my concerns and I will re-ask my questions.
Dan Wallace on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:05 pm #
Yes, TUAD, that’s true–that was a point I touched on. But the whole essay was clearly moving in a different direction. The right time and place to ask these questions was some time ago especially, when I blogged on doctrinal taxonomy more than once. I’m sure the topic will come up again though.
As for CMP, I can readily affirm that he’s crossed the line, he’s become recalcitrant; he’s a heretic. First, he’s an Oklahoma fan. Second, he listens to C&W. Third, he’s emerging. What need do we have for other witnesses? That’s a threefold cord that’s not easily broken!
Lisa R on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:08 pm #
“a weaker brother is someone who would be TEMPTED to do what we are doing yet not have a good conscience about it”
That’s exactly who I was thinking about in my previous comment (#4). Our love and care for members of the body should be a higher priority than expressions of freedom. We should not cause them to stumble. Besides, you want to see them strengthened so they can join in the movies
btw, my favorite movie of all times, and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen it, is the Godfather. Part II is 2nd. Let the stones begin.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:35 pm #
As for CMP, I can readily affirm that he’s crossed the line, he’s become recalcitrant; he’s a heretic. … Third, he’s emerging.
(Imagine George Costanza, Jerry Seinfeld’s friend, upon hearing a bit of news…)
I KNEW IT!!! Haaaaaaareaaaah-tic! (Yelled at the top of lungs and pounding on the table hard.)
You should have added a smiley face at the end of your paragraph so that no one would misinterpret.
P.S. Lest anyone forgets, CMP wrote the following on the first part of this series to expressly disavow any association by guilt with Emergers:
“I also write this because I was recently identified as an emerger (which was news to me) by some of the more antagonist anti-emergers at a Bible conference. More importantly, I was placed along side of McLaren and Pagitt as a significant influence in the emerging movement. I did not see the connection at all.”
(”M’oi?? Not me!! I’m not an Emerger! No way!” says an indignant CMP)
Avoid Everything That Appear Evil? | Through A Glass, Dimly on 20 Feb 2008 at 9:40 pm #
[...] an entry at Parchment and Pen, the Greek scholar Dan Wallace–author of the standard text Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, [...]
C Michael Patton on 20 Feb 2008 at 10:35 pm #
“As for CMP, I can readily affirm that he’s crossed the line, he’s become recalcitrant; he’s a heretic. First, he’s an Oklahoma fan. Second, he listens to C&W. Third, he’s emerging. What need do we have for other witnesses? That’s a threefold cord that’s not easily broken!”
That is awesome. Thanks for recognizing!
But I must say the unholy trinity that you espouse in opposition to mine (BMW, MAC, and USC) may seem like angels of light, but they are really satanic.
Dan Wallace on 21 Feb 2008 at 12:51 am #
Yes, but as an anagram they spell scummbawc, an old Gaelic word from which we get scum bag, which applies to you!
Just try to refute that logic!
Leslie on 21 Feb 2008 at 5:20 am #
Thank you, Dr. Wallace, for explaining First Thess. 5:22 in its context. How I wish I was your neighbor! I could have all my concerns and doubts clarified, and enjoy your authentic (grace-filled) Christian company.
By the way, lately I have added you to my list of Christians I want to emulate. Thank you for being a gracious and a humble Christian.
Susan on 21 Feb 2008 at 1:10 pm #
Leslie, it strikes me as funny that you would express your desire to emulate this man right after that shameless string of mud-slinging! Good “gracious & humble” MUD.
Dan, I see that you are indeed exercising your your freedoms in Christ….thanks for the demo, and for the clarification on “colorful language”!
While my brother was in Germany he said that the Germans consider BMW to be their pits car (they use them for taxis). Personally I own the more virtuous Prius (44 mpg). I’ll race you! You mat get out of the blocks faster (hare), but I can travel another 100 miles on a tank (I’ll wave at you as I pass), thus winning, as the tortoise. (I was reading Aesop’s Fables to my kids this week…..still embraced for their truth (even by emergers I told)). Besides, don’t you think that you might cause a weaker, closet, status-car lusting brother(or sis’), to stumble? I think that’s why Leslie wants to live next door (next she’ll be wanting the keys).
Is this considered “on subject?” (I’m trying my hardest to tie it in).
Susan on 21 Feb 2008 at 2:49 pm #
Truth Unites and Divides….
Dan doesn’t use smiley faces because he’s a real man.
Dan Wallace on 21 Feb 2008 at 2:58 pm #
Actually, Susan, your brother got it all wrong: The Germans don’t like BMWs for taxis. They use Mercedes and Fords. Really. I should know; I lived there for a year.
Few things can compare to going over 200 km on the Autobahn.
But as for your Prius, it reminds me of a friend who bought a politically respectable car that had great reliability but was butt-ugly. He was telling me that he would keep that car for twenty years. All I could do was feel sorry for him.
Susan on 21 Feb 2008 at 3:46 pm #
….I’ve driven 100 plus MPH (km?) on the Autobahn (ya know, in a German BMW rental car). Yes, it was FUN! But, you live in TEXAS! I test drove a BMW while I was shopping around. It bothered me that it requires premium gas to get the performance. Is that really a wise use of your resources? Aren’t you trying to collect funds for something?
and, the Prius is a hill, basically… but it’s grown on me. Don’t be so mean. I decided that image shouldn’t be a factor in my choice. And who is that friend (with good taste)? I’d like his email address.
A discussion of Christian Liberties as applied to car purchases….and the potential development of a nice new friendship.
Dan Wallace on 21 Feb 2008 at 4:49 pm #
Me be mean? You’re the one who said that the Germans use BMWs as taxis! Actually, the first BMW I got was five-toned blue (due to all the fender-benders it had been in), with over 100,000 miles on it and ten years old. I got it because I had been in an accident in my little Japanese number. Darn near died, too. In Texas, you need to drive a tank (that’s why nine out of ten people own an SUV or truck!) to stay alive. I chose the most economical route I could: a small bimmer that gets decent mileage. That car lasted ten more years and over 200,000 miles. Now I drive less than 10,000 miles a year. For the price difference on a Prius vs. a Corolla, it would take 18 years (assuming 10,000 miles per year and gas at $3 a gallon) before the Prius would pay for itself. If you drive 20,000 miles per year, it still would take nine years to pay for itself. Or if you drive 10,000 miles a year and gas costs $6 a gallon, you’re also nine years out.
Now, I’m just thinking outloud here, Susan, but I figure I’d really have to love a car an awful lot to carry it through 9 to 18 years before I could claim it as an economical move. But I also know that in California being politically correct is considered chic, even with tinfoil cars. Then again, one of my kids is going to get a Prius, so what do I know?
Susan on 21 Feb 2008 at 5:25 pm #
OK math genius (or did you look that up in Consumer Reports?), figure this one in— someone else bought the car for me, my ONLY cost is the gas.
At least one of your kids tuned out well…against genetic odds.
And remember, the “need for speed” is the root of some evil. Some scholars in reaching for it have stabbed themselves with many a painful ticket.
Moshe on 21 Feb 2008 at 6:02 pm #
Hello Dan,
Where did you get the data to arrive at this conclusion?
This verse, in fact, was more often attributed to Jesus than to Paul in the early church, suggesting that Paul got this line from his Lord and that it was one of the sayings that for some reason didn’t make it into the gospels but was nevertheless an authentic saying of Jesus. It was used with literal reference to coins; to abstain from every form of evil was to avoid counterfeit teaching.
What is wrong from keeping away from evil unless it has to do with advancing the Gospel as in the case Paul brings. (you cited it too). Why get freed from sin and then go back to sinning and living in a sinful environment with sinful anti-edifying influences.
Thanks for your studious contribution.
I look forward to your reply!
Dan Wallace on 21 Feb 2008 at 6:27 pm #
Susan, I don’t know what CR says about the economy of these new semi-cars, but it seems to me that SOMEBODY had to pay for your chic-mobile. So somebody has to wait 9-18 years before he or she can be happy that you’ve recouped their investment.
As for my unsanctified right foot, well, you got me there. But it’s been about five years since there’s been a ticket on my record. And that was driving my wife’s minivan.
Moshe, the standard commentaries on 1-2 Thessalonians list some of the patristic references, as does the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (under the word ειδος, I believe). But I’m confused by your question. I don’t know what you mean by “What is wrong from keeping away from evil unless it has to do with advancing the Gospel as in the case Paul brings[?]“. But you go on and say “Why get freed from sin and then go back to sinning…[?]“. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the gray areas of the Christian life are sin. But that’s not true. They may be sinful for some, but not for all. So to enjoy the good things that God has created is not sinful if it is done to his glory and within the boundaries specified by scripture. Again, if I understand you correctly, your argument is circular: you are assuming that these gray areas are sinful and then you are asking why someone should go back to sinning when he has been redeemed. But if such things are not inherently sinful in the first place, your conclusion is flawed. What am I missing?
allen on 21 Feb 2008 at 9:50 pm #
So everything goes except false teaching? What freedom! Now I can smoke my Marlboros, at the Friday nite card game enjoying my beer, as long as I dont get drunk, which is subjective also. Of course I will have my pocket Bible with me. See when I used to do those things I did it for selfiah pleasure, not knowing God. But now my motivation is different. I want to do them to enjoy what God has given for His glory, to show what God has made clean , let no man say is unclean.What decent moral type American wouldn’t want to be a Christian? We get saved from hell but we really don’t have to change too much as far as our actions I guess the Seeker churches have it right afer all.
Dan Wallace on 21 Feb 2008 at 10:08 pm #
Allen, I think Paul said it best when his opponents made a similar argument: “And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just” (Rom 3.8).
allen on 21 Feb 2008 at 10:45 pm #
I just think that sometimes, we Americans , living in the 20/21st century mindset look at Christian freedom through eyes more attuned to self expression and therapeutic philosophy than a pious, self -denying lens of the cross. Without saying it , we want our cake and eat it too when it comes to culture and God. The differences today are only one more of degree than actual.
Yes, many in the past used their piety, their zeal for separateness to the extreme of making it conditional of salvation. This was wrong. But to claim freedom where it only means “personal” freedom is , I believe, missing the point of Scripture. Our lives are not our own to live in some personal, subjective freedom. We belong to Christ, the church universal, and to others. Our personal desires and wants are immaterial to that of the body of Christ.
Our current age, IMHO, is not one that is best to suited to gage Christian piety and freedom by. We have become a much more selfish , independent, spoiled society and mindset. I believe this skews our understanding and comprehension. It just seems funny to me that all of a sudden, we contemporary Christians understand what Christian freedom means better than the church of days gone by.
Our convictions in personal freedom are held in such deeply personal ways. It is more about our own identity than reality or truth. This conviction expresses who we want to be, rather than what we really believe is true. So we tend to worship subjectivism, in the name of freedom of course.This is the American ethos and it has carried over into our faith and our interpretation of the Scriptures.
Nick Norelli on 21 Feb 2008 at 11:44 pm #
Dan,
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the use of drugs (let’s leave aside them being illegal for the moment because not all drugs are illegal in all places) as it pertains to Christian liberty? Is it alright for some? I only ask because I get asked this a lot (by honest seekers, by those trying to justify their own use, and by friends who tend towards legalism that want to draw an analogy between my listening to secular music and watching secular TV). My immediate response is that using drugs is not ok because they destroy the body (see 1Cor. 3:16-17), but then someone always brings up McDonalds or Burger King and how unhealthy they are. Would you consider drug use a gray area? If so, why? If not, why not? Thanks.
Christian Liberty and Drug Use « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth on 21 Feb 2008 at 11:49 pm #
[...] Liberty and Drug Use Dan Wallace has a good post (”post” Dan, not “blog”!) about a faulty interpretation of 1Thessalonians [...]
Dan Wallace on 21 Feb 2008 at 11:55 pm #
Allen, that’s a much more thoughtful response. Thank you. I can agree with you to some degree on this. It’s very easy for us to turn license into freedom and claim that what we’re doing is truly worshiping Christ. At the same time, it’s also very easy to turn freedom into restricted privilege that only a few can enjoy. Legalism is endemic to human nature. Shucks, every kid knows this: “Oh yeah, well my dad’s a lot tougher than your dad. He makes me do….” Somehow we feel like we’re getting ascetic points for surviving fathers who disciplined us. And that asceticism, that legalism, that self-flagellation-because-the-body-is-evil kind of Christianity is worthless, says Paul. When he says, “For freedom Christ has set you free,” and “everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected—if it is received with thanksgiving,” maybe he’s saying something that counters even what we Americans think about religion. From where I sit, Americans who only live out their freedom in Christ but do not do so with thanksgiving to God are in error, and perhaps are even doing so with a twinge of guilt, hoping that such freedom is allowed for believers. But others who condemn them because they could not enjoy such freedoms without guilt themselves are also in error. As they say, guilt makes the world go around. Perhaps the real Christianity isn’t like that at all.
Dan Wallace On Christian Liberty « Joy in the Journey on 22 Feb 2008 at 12:48 am #
[...] Dan Wallace On Christian Liberty Yes, I do have some fuller length and more substantial posts in the works, but I just haven’t had a chance to put the finishing touches on them. In the meantime, I wanted to direct your attention to another interesting post from “Reclaiming the Mind Ministries” blog. This time the contributor is the esteemed New Testament/Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace. The title of his recent post is “Avoid Every Appearance of Evil!“. [...]
allen on 22 Feb 2008 at 3:33 am #
Dan,
Thanks for the reply. I still do not see how what you said answers my doubt. You just seem to say that though some may take an extreme right position, we must balance it with the extreme left position. Do you really mean to suggest that Paul would have entertained going to the Roman baths, theater, etc? Are you saying that the church has had it wrong since its inception until now?
I do not see how what I am asserting has anything to do with self-flagellation. It is more about absolutes. You seem to like to celebrate gray but God seems to me to be much more black and white. Sin-holiness, narrow-wide, heaven -hell, right-wrong, good-evil,etc. Here is something to ponder.
We will all agree that ascetically, the Grand Canyon is beautiful to the eyes. If one would say , it’s not, we would seriously doubt his ability to discern beauty. Now we would almost all say hat a stinky landfill is ugly. I agree that some will say it is beautiful, but not because it is ascetically beautiful, but because of what they derive personally from it–the thought of something valuable being in it. Beauty has an absolute, though we may because of sin, interpret that different.
The same goes with personal liberty. Everything has a philosophical underpinning to it, a reason for its being or use. There is a season and reason for everything as the wise man said. Sometimes the reason may be to make man stumble and falsely assume his inherent sinful craving to dictate his own life instead of following principles that God has constructed, though not commanded in particular. These principles are still of absolute quality in that God is absolute. He is not gray, although he is diverse in creation. But just as God made opium, does not mean he made it for us to refine into heroin and shoot up. You seem to forget our sinful leaning is always to the wrong, and even more so is that apparent in the Christian as God perfect will is revealed to us.
So for us to avoid and be separated from this world can be carried to an extreme and in some points in the past has been, I do not feel an antinomian tilt is the answer either. Let each man be convinced in his own mind , but oh how we better heed the warning that our tendency is to sin in our natural man, which we wrestle with here, not to holiness. I am not trying to make matter evil, but neither am I saying that all matter is neutral either. It has been affected by the Fall also, hence a new heaven and earth, not just a new man. Our freedom in Christ is not a personal freedom as we see it being Americans. It is the freedom to reach for the highest good, just as God is high and lifted up in both His authority and His nature/attributes and to see that quality, not to be stuck in the matters of the heart. So should all our actions and thoughts be(under this quality of God) within our culture, which happens to be Western, therefore under the influence of Christian thought for much longer that Eastern culture. This is just a side note. With our pluralistic , multiculturalistic influence , I believe this also tends to make us want to be accommodating or to have a “freedom” to be what we want to be. This in turn again affects our understanding of “freedom”.
I guess that sometimes we can have an interpretation correct, but the spirit of that interpretation wrong. I do not think the emphasis is on personal humanistic freedom, but on freedom to seek God’s highest for our lives, not our personal passions. We have been changed, so let’s follow the new man. Let’s reach for the higher, not worlds ideas of enjoyment and freedom. Even in human affairs we have principles , though not always laws that govern us. When I was a teenager, I would not cut my beard though this lawn firm wouldn’t hire me if I didn’t. I was rebellious and concerned about personal freedom. What I did not understand was why they wanted to say that it wasn’t conducive to public relations. If the public thought it was wrong, well they were wrong. There was nothing wrong with a beard. What I did not understand was that wearing a beard at the time was looked at as being rebellious, and looking back, that was the statement that was being made by most wearing beards. It was the hippie days. The philosophy that led to rebellion was played out in the ascetics. The lawn firm had it right at that time. It was a principle that most seemed to understand. I didn’t because I was part of the rebellion. Should there have been a law passed? No, but the principle was correct for the reason that the lawn firm held it. It was not best for business. The same applies in our Christian walk. Though , like me, I was free to have a beard I would have to bear the ramifications of that freedom. A wise man would have said, why make it that important—-cut the beard I say the same with much of our “Christian liberty” . If it is that important to have that personal liberty, then something else is in play, just as much as the person who would deny all liberty.
Leslie on 22 Feb 2008 at 4:12 am #
Susan, in the first place I am a ‘he’. I am a 33 year old young man, residing in southern India. I have read most of Dr. Wallace’s article in bible.org, learning a lot of good theology. I have heard quite a bit of his schorlarship and professorial skills. I admired the gracious tone in which he responded to Pyromaniac’s attack on him after he wrote REINVENTING JESUS. I am right now reading the book, and find it extremely informative. I watched him on the John Ankerberg Show talking about the subject of his latest book, DETHRONING JESUS. His humble attitude is truly Christ-like. These are the reasons I have come to admire Dr. Wallace, though I do not know him personally. Who knows, I might begin to know him if I make it to DTS one of these days!
Dan Wallace on 22 Feb 2008 at 4:52 am #
Allen, I hate to disagree with you on your absolutes, but no, not all of us can say that, ascetically, the Grand Canyon is beautiful to the eyes. Aesthetically we can, but not ascetically. I don’t know if you were trying to make a point there or were just misspelling the word.
You’re putting words in my mouth when you suggest that Paul would condone the Roman baths. What I have said repeatedly in this post is that Christians have the privilege of enjoying the good things in life that God has given them as long as they do so for the glory of God and do so within the bounds of scripture. I will add one more point: as long as they don’t parade their freedom in front of weaker brothers.
You seem to be saying that there are no gray areas: “You seem to like to celebrate gray but God seems to me to be much more black and white. Sin-holiness, narrow-wide, heaven -hell, right-wrong, good-evil,etc.” That’s precisely the area where we disagree. You strike me as the sort of person who is earnest for the Lord but also as someone who may be a bit of a spoil-sport, someone who puts out the flick of any fun-uprising. I hope you’re not that way, but you sure are coming across that way in your comments.
You argue that we all have a tendency to sin. Agreed. But how you seem to define sin is only one-sided. Read the gospels and you’ll see that Jesus almost never rebuked the religious leaders for taking too many liberties. He rebuked them for loading burdens on the people—burdens that they couldn’t possibly carry themselves. Their sin was the sin of an ascetic legalism, pride in how self-disciplined they could be, how righteous they were. That’s an equally dangerous temptation as the temptation to to sin in the other direction. But I didn’t see any nuancing in your statement, just a flat sense that temptation to do wrong means temptation to enjoy life illicitly. The Pharisees didn’t do that; they were party spoilers who could dump guilt at the flick of the quill! Do you not see that there is a danger in going in either direction? My point in this blog, however, is to remind Christians of how much freedom they do have in Christ. My point was not to restrict that freedom beyond recognition.
I’ve been observing my facial hair as I’m aging. I’m getting gray. But it’s not all the hairs at once turning a little grayer each day. It’s a few hairs going all out and turning white while the rest of the pack stay back in the black. Interesting phenomenon. If someone wanted to say that I was turning gray, I could simply pull out a black hair and prove him wrong. But he could pull out a white hair and prove that he’s wrong, too (’cuz it ain’t gray). My point is that the issue of gray areas in the Christian life involves individual freedoms for one and restrictions for another. The weak don’t have the right to judge the strong, and the strong don’t have the right to flaunt their freedoms in front of the weak. I take it that this means that the freedoms of the strong can be exercised in private even though spoken about in public. When Paul said that if his eating meat would cause his weaker brother to stumble, he would never eat meat again (1 Cor 8.13), I don’t think that he suddenly changed his mind one chapter later when he said, “I have become all things to all people so that I might win some” (1 Cor 9.22). No, I believe he was saying that he would not eat meat in front of the weaker brother ever again. Yet in this very letter he was admitting that he ate meat! On the other hand, he would not restrict his own freedom in the gray areas IF doing so would hurt the gospel. In other words, Paul would have gladly eaten meat offered to idols, downed a couple of brewskies with his neighbors, and cheered rabidly for the home team—if that’s what it took to win the person to the Lord. He viewed that as both an act of freedom and an act of slavery. Frankly, sometimes Christians are far more offensive to those they are trying to win by their stuffiness, asceticism, and self-righteousness. And that’s because they refuse to get out of their comfort zone, or they have so many taboos that they can’t even see what’s really important any more. Is it any wonder that non-Christians like Jesus but don’t care much for the church?
Leslie on 22 Feb 2008 at 6:26 am #
Dr. Wallace:
Could it be said that the reason that some Christians are scared of freedom is that they have not adequately understood what grace is all about. These folks are still holding on to the belief that they ought/ought not to do certain things to be accepted by God. And worse, they think they should frame the rules for others to be accepted by God. Lack of proper appreciation for grace leads to bondage of a different kind!
JoanieD on 22 Feb 2008 at 8:11 am #
Allen, I think you ask some very good questions. Paul or one of the other apostles in their letters to the church reminded the disciples that having become a Christian did NOT give them license to now continuing sinning. And yet they also said that if we now say we have no sin in us, we are wrong. And somewhere they point out that sins would be things like arrogance, jealousy, non-caring, etc. BUT…I do believe there are behaviors that harm our bodies which are the temples of God and that God would not want us to commit those actions. So, I can come out and say that no, it should never be accepted that shooting heroin is OK. Or snorting cocaine. Not only do they hurt our bodies, they can become addictive and in the addicts’ need to satisfy that addiction, they can wreak havoc on their loved ones, the need for drugs having become more important to them than anything. God, in my opinion, would not want that.
I am guilty of eating too many sweets to the point that I am now overweight. So I am guilty of the sin of gluttony. Does that make God not love me? Of course not, but when people look at me, they may feel I am a person who lacks discipline and they may be less apt to take me seriously. I was not always overweight. At one time, I was thin and then for years I was “just right.” People DO look at you differently when you become heavy. Becoming more disciplined does not mean I lack freedom in Christ. It just means that I am becoming more conformed to the image of Christ. I will use the good things that God has given us in a healthy way. The Bible doesn’t say that it is a sin to eat rocks, but it’s not healthy and we don’t do it. So it only makes sense to stay away from all things that make us unhealthy or make us people that behave badly toward others.
And if others are doing the unhealthy things, what should we do? We love them and remind them of God’s love for them. Lecturing them about the evils of what they are doing most often won’t help. Leaving some “literature” around about the dangers of what they are doing may help at some point when they are in a more sober frame of mind to read. For what its worth, that’s my take, but I am a very less well-educated person theologically than Dan and many others here.
Joanie D.
allen on 22 Feb 2008 at 8:54 am #
Don,
I am not exactly disagreeing with you at all points. I just do not trust the idea of gray as you seem too. Paul used meat offered to idols for his example of liberty. Why was that chosen over something that would be more attuned to what your interpretation is? Why not fine speech? Does God forbid fine speech? No, but it sure minimizes it of having any importance in delivering the Good News. I think the meat illustration would be more in tune with the use of drums in church or in private just because they were also used by pagans in their worship practices. I dont think it was an illustration of any personal freedom to pleasure and entertainment. Maybe I am wrong here.
Lets look at a couple of your examples. Are they wrong as far as there being a law? No and yes. Here we have gray (no and yes). No, because there is no implicit law. Yes because of the law of Christ. Does it represent the highest qualities of God? Take drinking. I am an ex-alcoholic so I can see this being a hindrance to many and not so wise of a practice , given our cultures propensity to glorify partying. R rated movies. I watch a few, but if I know that it contains nudity that has no real contribution to the film other than sensual titillation and that is what most of it is for, how does my viewing this glorify God and subdue the wanton pleasures that my flesh would enjoy? You say not all people have that lust problem? I seriously have my doubts there but even if they don’t, how does public knowledge of this help glorify Christ in the minds of the saved or unsaved?
Maybe I am taking liberties with your assertions and by R rated you mean violence and swearing. And watching this willingly, glorifies God and edifies us, how?All for our freedom?
This is from another blog and may illustrate what I am trying to say, though it is not exactly the same premise. I will but parenthesis around what I think may show my points.
————————————————
{Our Savior did not use any means which might enlist man’s lower nature on his side. }When I have heard of large congregations gathered together by the music of a fine choir, I have remembered that the same thing is done at the opera house and the music-hall, and I have felt no joy. When we have heard of crowds enchanted by the sublime music of the pealing organ, I have seen in the fact rather a glorification of St. Cecilia than of Jesus Christ. {Our Lord trusted in no measure or degree to the charms of music(culture) for the establishing his throne. He has not given to his disciples the slightest intimation that they are to employ the attractions of the concert room to promote the kingdom of heaven. }(in their lives or others , mine)
I find no rubric in Scripture commanding Paul to clothe himself in robes of blue, scarlet, or violet; neither do I find Peter commanded to wear a surplice, an alb, or a chasuble. The Holy Spirit has not cared even to hint at a surpliced choir, or at banners, processions, and processional hymns. Now, if our Lord had arranged a religion of fine shows, and pompous ceremonies, and gorgeous architecture, and enchanting, music, and bewitching incense, and the like, we could have comprehended its growth; but he is “a root out of a dry ground”, for he owes nothing to any of these.
Christianity has been infinitely hindered by the musical,( the aesthetic), and the ceremonial devices of men,{ but it has never been advantaged by them, no, not a jot. The sensuous delights of sound and sight have always been enlisted on the side of error, but Christ has employed nobler and more spiritual agencies}. Things which fascinate the senses are left to be the chosen instruments of Antichrist, but the gospel, disdaining Saul’s armor, goes forth in the natural simplicity of its own might, like David, with sling and stone.{ Our holy religion owes nothing whatever to any carnal means;} so far as they are concerned, it is “a root out of a dry ground”.
—————————————–
allen on 22 Feb 2008 at 9:38 am #
Joanie,
Thank you for your illustration. I too have started to become overweight because of my love of sweets. Does God forbid sweets. No, but there are principles that you go gracefully illustrated. God does not forbid entertainment and enjoyment. But that enjoyment should be found in Him and in the things that glorify Him, not in personal pleasures. My personal love of sweets apart from God’s glory has led to the start of a problem.
Rocks are good, but we do not eat rocks though we have the freedom by the essence of a no-law to do so. But there is a principle there that is a law unto itself. Go and eat it but you will pay a price. So even if there is no formal law, there is an unwritten law. The law of Christ and His love for us is not to have a rock as part of our diet. This is not a gray area. Neither is the use of certain things in our culture only a gray area. How much do we really love Christ and His creation? Enough to smoke, eat too much, watch dubious films ? We are not talking about harmless meat or something that the harm is only in ones mind.
So is it sin? I don’t know for sure, but it seems that deep down we know it is not good though we would love to justify it by claiming freedom. Do these things edify us? That is the question. Is edification subjective? It seems that in our culture , our tendency is not toward legalism, but the opposite.
Grace is needed for those that struggle, but lets not confuse grace with freedom. We get freedom out of grace, but that freedom is to the things of God, not to the things of the world. An R rated film is not a thing of God but a thing made by man for his glory. We need wisdom, not freedom.
Susan on 22 Feb 2008 at 10:16 am #
Leslie, Sorry about the gender mis-ID! I’ve read and watched those sources you mentioned as well (great stuff). I believe Dan to be the true and genuine article, a godly man who very much loves God and His word. Isn’t it inspiring to see a life lived in true sacrifice to His service? Have you checked out the CSNTM web site (Dan’s organization)?. I hope you make it to DTS some day! India, WOW! You must be the most distant blogger. Incidentally I have friends in Russia (missionaries), his name is also Leslie.
Question: Would you favor owning a Prius, or a BMW?
Dan, I think it’s also important to look at the sparkling repair record of the Prius (also #1 in customer satisfaction ratings) which the BMW unfortunately doesn’t share,…and oooh how those German car repairs hurt the wallet!
Your son has done his homework well…you should be proud.
Also, my Prius was half-way paid for by the insurance co.. The accident which totaled my 4Runner wasn’t my fault….and we got a good sized tax credit (green incentive). Tell your son that the GPS system is great (now if I would only take the time to learn how to use it).
wife and mother on 22 Feb 2008 at 10:23 am #
I’ve enjoyed all your posts. Thank you Lisa R, for your kind reply to my first post.
Thank you allen for your post. That is what I was trying to say… “Lets look at a couple of your examples. Are they wrong as far as there being a law? No and yes. Here we have gray (no and yes). No, because there is no implicit law. Yes because of the law of Christ. Does it represent the highest qualities of God? Take drinking. I am an ex-alcoholic so I can see this being a hindrance to many and not so wise of a practice , given our cultures propensity to glorify partying. R rated movies. I watch a few, but if I know that it contains nudity that has no real contribution to the film other than sensual titillation and that is what most of it is for, how does my viewing this glorify God and subdue the wanton pleasures that my flesh would enjoy? You say not all people have that lust problem? I seriously have my doubts there but even if they don’t, how does public knowledge of this help glorify Christ in the minds of the saved or unsaved?
Maybe I am taking liberties with your assertions and by R rated you mean violence and swearing. And watching this willingly, glorifies God and edifies us, how?All for our freedom?”
My husband and I have four children ~ ages 9. 7, 4, and 4 months. All of these “liberties” will soon become very scary. My husband gets very frustrated with me because I will not “enjoy” alcohol. He has been reading these posts for a couple of years and feels that they minister to him because it is what he believes. We have been at odds now for that long over spiritual/religious matters. Not to say we no longer love one another or are in fear of separation, just that the disagreements are a constant back-burner of tension. I feel as tho I’m in high school again where you’ve got the whole “you gotta drink to be cool” peer pressure thing going on. If picking up a six-pack to enjoy at home with a movie is considered glorifying God with your freedom, then color me confused. I’m not at all comfortable with alcohol ~ I have several family members who abuse it. How then can I possibly be comfortable bringing it into my house with my children?
And watching movies that abuse God’s name numerous times and show full-frontal nudity just to be showing it??? Even there, I’ve read posts that praise such movies by liberty embracing Christians. Is that enjoying liberty in Christ or simply excusing the content because the storyline is great? Would you sit down with a Holy God and watch it? You can go to Focus on the Family and read reviews of every movie that comes out…why wouldn’t you use that resource when its available? But that too is a matter of contention…if I look everything up, we don’t watch near as many movies. It’s almost as if “ignorance” truly “is bliss”. If you don’t know about it ahead of time and “stumble” onto the questionable content, then it’s okay. Unless, of course, the sexual stimulation harms your mind or marriage.
Seriously, I’m not getting it. My intention is not to sound irate but after two years of arguing this exact point with my husband, I go from increasing frustration to resignation that we will ever be one concerning Biblical matters. That isn’t a good place to be in child-rearing.
I just don’t understand how it went from “and be not conformed to this world” to enjoy it all for His glory.
Susan on 22 Feb 2008 at 1:02 pm #
Wife and mother, (I’m that too),
Thanks for your honesty and openness. This forum allows for that. I can certainly understand your hesitations given your background. Mine has been different in that way. I haven’t partaken of alcohol, but a rare sip, because I haven’t been in much of a place of exposure to it (thus I haven’t developed a taste for it). I know that there is no prohibition in scripture against it, but I don’t feel like I’ve missed out.
My husband’s background was different. He drank quite a bit with buddies back in HS. I’m glad that he has chosen not to drink much since then. Once, not long ago, he ordered a beer at a restaurant while we were out with the kids (to their surprise, and maybe concern). I told them that it is not wrong for an adult to have a drink (in most cases). I think that my husband kind of had second thoughts because of the reaction of our children. It was a good teaching moment–no harm done. I don’t want them to be “little Pharisees” anyway.
As for your situation, given your history, honestly it does seem to me that your husband’s perspective and actions are selfish at best. To him I would say that sometimes we need to be able to sacrifice our own wants in order to show genuine love and concern for the other. I too would be uncomfortable with the message to the children, given the history of abuse in your family. It doesn’t hurt to favor caution. I wold rather my children think of alcohol as something which isn’t of itself wrong, but isn’t necessary for enjoyment in any situation, nor the ticket to coolness. Certainly children mimmic their parent’s attitudes and actions. It would be great if you husband would model genuine self-sacrifice in love to you, in this area.
The key for you…even if your husband won’t alter his choice in this matter, is to be forgiving. It’s so important not to let resentment take root (believe me I have yards of experience here…I could tell many a tear-jerking story). Most importantly, pray for wisdom for yourself, and that God will handle things where your husband’s heart is concerned. Leave it in God’s hands (stop fighting over it). Your children will learn from this attitude and posture from you. I’m sure that there are times when you feel unloved by your husband (been there, big time). I came to the point where I had to let go of my “need to be loved” by him. My focus on that was tearing me apart. It caused me to try so hard to please him…but my efforts accomplished nothing. Over time, I found it freeing to change from my love need focus to a more intimate God focus. Now I recieve from God’s word what my husband is incapable of giving even on his best day.
I’ve also come to understand that the degree to which a person’s heart is submitted to God has a direct impact on ones relationships. There are always spiritual issues at the core of every conflict….and our ever present enemy loves to instigate these conflicts among Christians. Pray for protection in your marriage from the enemy’s arrows. One of the hardest things for me too, at times, has been trusting God about the impact of my husband’s ways on my children. I remember Joseph’s words to his wicked brothers “You meant this for evil, but God used it for good.” Not that I’m saying your husband is wicked and evil, but just that it’s encouraging to know that God’s providence prevails even when we can’t always see it immediately.
I will pray for you. I’m sure you’ve experienced some real pain…God sees that too.
from a sister in Christ, Susan
wife and mother on 22 Feb 2008 at 1:22 pm #
Susan, thank you over and again for your post. It is just so nice for someone to see where I’m coming from. It has been such a struggle. I appreciate your words of encouragement.
As for the alcohol issue, I’ve never had any. I’m terrified of it, and I’ve never felt there was a situation in which I would have enjoyed myself more or been a better witness had I been drinking. Which means at this point, it would cause me much self-loathing to partake.
As for becoming more focused on God, I’m having trouble with that as well. Everything that I feel/believe has been verbally chipped on for two years. Basically that everything I practice needs to be enlightened or more liberal. I have found at this point, that I don’t belong to either side….legalism or liberalism. Everything in the Bible seems to be taken two different ways depending on what your take is and what you want it to fulfill in your own life. I feel ready to just throw my hands up and say forget the whole thing. But then, there are my children. I can’t resign myself to not caring because like you said, they adopt those attitudes.
But anyway, thanks again for taking the time to comment and encourage. And I would appreciate your prayers.
allen on 22 Feb 2008 at 1:34 pm #
wife and mother,
I understand your sentiments and empathize with you. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for adding law where there was no law. He was critical that they made laws of tradition. I see this as wrong. But let’s look at what they were accusing the disciples of doing. Eating the heads of grain! This did not violate the 10 Commands because it was good and proper to eat and fellowship, even on the Sabbath. Was Jesus taking a Roman bath, or buying and selling in the market place for his good pleasure and liberty? Was he even advocating that we should all eat grain on the sabbath or that we could if we wanted too. No the point was not one of liberty, but one of making law over and above God’s law. The Sabbath was made for man. so that he could rest from his labors , not be under undue pressure to conform to a law made by mans sinful interpretation.
Many times we are Opposite Pharisees. We want to make a law of no law when a law does exist, if only in principle. Your illustration of drinking is telling. Do we,because we are in a certain cultural mindset—(drinking is cool), do it for God’s glory or for because we really want to fit in with the culture? This is where I believe that the mindset of Pastors, theologians and professors have imbibed the philosophical mindset of the last 150 years so much that it has guided their interpretation of this issue.
The OT is full of regulations and laws, though we are no longer under them because Christ has fulfilled them, the principle of separateness still applies. If we smoke , drink, cuss, watch and do what most of the culture does, how are we different in a practical way? What would an unbeliever see in us that the world does not offer. Morality? Ethics? Happines? Enjoying life’s pleasures? Most unsaved do not commit heinous sins. Most are “good people” just trying to raise their families and be good and make a honest living.
If we do the same things they do, what is the difference, beside that we are saved and they are not. How does this salvation translate into our lives? By giving us freedom to do the things that they are slaves to? We do good works. Like what? Helping people? So does the world. What is meant by salt and light? What is meant by not being conformed to the patterns of this world? Does that mean just not being a atheist or Evolutionist?
I do not think doing any of these things prove or make our salvation. We can be carnal and all of us at times are. If we say we have no sin we call God a liar. The idea is, are these good works or will they be burned up in the fire though we be saved? Do we teach our children that smoking , though harmful is ok if you choose to do it. Do we teach our children to drink, but only properly, or do we say it is best to just avoid the temptation all together. Will we show our children that it is OK to watch an R rated film but not for them, as if it is ok for us? This is what I would call the law of the Pharisees.
Again, there is no easy answer to all this, except to pursue God with all your heart mind, soul and strength. If what we do is part and parcel of that pursuit and it glorifies God, then so be it. But we need to make sure we are being honest with ourselves in this matter, given that our heart is deceitful above all things , who can know it. We are masters at self-justification. Do we really think we are better than the Pharisees who were good at self-justification? Yes this goes for all of us, no matter what position we are taking here. The emphasis should be on holiness and God, not freedom and man. The church doesn’t need lessons on freedom, They seem to use it well today.The Son has set us free. Free from the law of wanting to do what the world tells us, from wanting to do only what our flesh finds pleasing in itself. This is what the world does. so do we nee to make laws? No , we have the Law of Christ and that is to be as He would have us be, in love for the Father and the Spirit that is in us. Soli Deo Gloria
Dan Wallace on 22 Feb 2008 at 11:37 pm #
Folks, I don’t want to comment on every comment, nor on any in particular (well, except for one). All I want to say is this: If I were an outsider who sat down one day and started reading this blog and all the comments seriatim, I think I would see a definite pattern developing. What started out as a breath of fresh air on our freedom in Christ has become mired in way too much introspection, feelings of guilt, and paralysis of analysis.
Frankly, reading this reminds me of a pastor’s conference I went to almost forty years ago. There were 1200 men at this conference, held at Wheaton College. Bill Gothard was the speaker; it was his Advanced Youth Conflicts conference, just for pastors. There were several well-known pastors there, several leaders and gatekeepers of the church. High anticipation, much joy at the beginning of this week-long conference.
On the first day while we were all eating in the cafeteria, spontaneous singing broke out. No one said, “Hey, let’s sing some hymns!” But one table started singing, and another joined in, then another and another. By the end of the lunch hour, all of us were singing some of the great hymns of the church. What an incredible experience! No one told us to do it, and no one could have prevented it. I was deeply moved by the experience and the freedom we had in Christ.
But then, a strange thing happened. As the days wore on, and the conference lasted several hours each day, every man there started to inspect his own life in ways that I now think were largely inappropriate. Each man was second-guessing himself, wondering if he was offending someone else in what he said or did, being concerned to please God by living a life that was… well, bland. And the music stopped.
I was just a young man at the time, a freshman in college (’pastor’ only in the loosest possible sense!). But I noticed that this week transformed people from an exuberant crowd to a group of men burdened by the weight of man-made rules. It was a sad thing to see, and very disturbing.
Allen, you may be right that American Christians are not prone to legalism (although I seriously doubt it; we have more hang-ups than Pfizer has little blue pills!), but even a group of godly leaders could be swept up in it even though they had demonstrated a different demeanor to start with.
(Sidenote: As for the Pharisees, your analysis about the plucking heads of grain missed a very important point: The Pharisees were not at all upset about Jesus’ disciples eating grain on the Sabbath. What ticked them off was that the disciples had rubbed the grain-heads together to get rid of the chaff before they ate. That was threshing, one of the 39 acts strictly prohibited on the Sabbath. And plucking heads of grain was reaping, another of the 39 prohibited acts. And to the Jews of the first century, these man-made laws were every it as binding as the Ten Commandments. So, this was no small issue, just as it was no small issue for the apostles to eat pork—let alone shellfish.)
Instead of coming up with all sorts of ways to restrict a believer’s freedom, why don’t we think about what we can accomplish for Christ, and how we—as ambassadors of the risen Lord—can live the life of the age to come even now? At bottom, I think, is this issue: Would you rather please God by making sure that you didn’t offend anyone or would you rather please God by having a positive strategy, even if this meant getting messy with life? As for me, I would far rather offend some folks if people come to Christ because I am active, alive, and not boring. My guess is that that comment will even offend some of you. Sorry, but I had to bring this topic back on track.
Help My Unbelief » Blog Archive » Links and More (Links) on 23 Feb 2008 at 12:46 am #
[...] Avoid every appearance of evil. My Take: I thoroughly enjoy Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. Tags: creation, evolution, news [...]
Susan on 23 Feb 2008 at 12:57 am #
Amen, Dan. That last paragraph….that’s where our focus needs to be. I would love for that to be the final word on this subject. I think we so often err on the side of being overly cautious, rather than stepping out and taking risks for the sake of the gospel. It;s important not to keep ourselves at arms length from nonbelievers because we’re afraid of getting dirty. If we are hindered by fear, we miss out on the great adventure of reaching the lost.
allen on 23 Feb 2008 at 8:30 am #
“As for me, I would far rather offend some folks if people come to Christ because I am active, alive, and not boring.”
I am not offended by this comment, but I believe people come to Christ because the Father draws them and through His Word convicts them. I do not believe it has anything to do with whether I am active, alive or not boring, though God works through and with anything, even a donkey. Those terms are subjective, especially the boring one. We are all alive and being alive we are all active, just some in their freedom, more than others.
I agree, our love for God, His love for us and a very loose hold on earthly things is what needs to be the focus. If we love God with all our hearts , minds and souls, then what ever we do will be done for His glory. He will bring any love of the world crashing down for He will not share His glory with another, if indeed the Spirit of God is working in us. Let God deal with each man, for He is holy and everyman a liar.
Lastly, I do not think anyone is afraid of getting dirty and therefore hindered by fear. The focus on some is fear of the Lord. He is a holy God and is not like us. That some understand and feel the weight of this ,is not some inordinate fear, but I believe the very epitome of be holy as I am holy.
Dan, from some of your comments, if I may take the liberty, I believe you had been raised in a holy roller church and have a keen disdain for that. If so, I can not blame you, I would too. Or you have been influenced by the caricature of the Christian church by the media and film and the University. I am not saying you are wrong, but it seems to me that you place a higher degree of importance on liberty, which is Biblical, than on holiness which is also biblical. I believe our point of contention is this. Though both of us would agree that both are to be in view, I believe a focus on liberty in today’s world is not where the focus should be. It should be on the point of holiness. Americans have no problem with liberty and choice. What they have a problem with is sacrifice and walking the narrow path. I believe the University has spurned the latter in keeping with its views on multiculturalism , relativism, syncretism etc. This in turn affects our theological expression and emphasis. We live in a blessed and spoiled society. Choice and fredom of expression runs rampant. Not that this is intrinsically wrong, but we must be wise in understanding human nature. We are fallen. Our tendency as fallen men is to be complacent in our “luxuries” and make a god out of them and the freedoms to do and express them. Here lies the danger in American Christianity. Working for a ministry that serves overseas, I have heard it time and time again from youths and adults from the Philippines, Kenya and others places—Americans Christians have no grasp of holiness. I agree and the sad part is Dan, we export our convoluted theology and practices to them. Maybe I am all wet, but that is what I see. Thanks Professor for your thoughts. I will certainly continue to weigh them against Scripture and in prayer.
JOLLYBLOGGER on 23 Feb 2008 at 1:13 pm #
Dan Wallace on Avoiding All Appearance of Evil
While I’m pointing out new blogs I’ll point out one that isn’t new but is to me - Parchment and Pen or Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. It’s outstanding and I am particularly excited about the posts from Dan Wallace. Justin
C Michael Patton on 23 Feb 2008 at 7:28 pm #
Wow, take my eyes off for one moment and look what happens. Dan goes emerging on me
Nice.
C Michael Patton on 23 Feb 2008 at 7:30 pm #
“I love you Lord, and I life my voice to worship you . . .” Hey why isn’t anyone singing with me?
Dan, you are right. Something sucked the life out of the song. Great post anyway.
Susan on 24 Feb 2008 at 2:46 am #
allen, If you read Dan’s last blog (Great Commission part 3) I think you might understand that his purpose on this one was, in part to show us that we have freedoms which allow us to have a drink with a nonbeliever, to see an R rated movie with them (not necessarily a slimy sex movie, but the average guy movie is often violent) etc.. What most nonchristians see in Christians is what we are against: abortion,homosexuality, you know, the Christian rules. So do you think it is more compelling to a nonbeliever to see that a Christian won’t drink alcohol & maybe even avoids situations where others present will be drinking, and refuses to watch ANY R rated movies…Or, is it more compelling to the nonbeliever if we are willing to spend time with them in their comfort zone, build a good friendship with them, and then help them when we see an opportunity to do so?
I can explain my point best by giving recent examples from my own experinces with nonbelievers. I have a son attending public school (third child, 1st to go to public school). I have very much purposed to become friends with other moms in hopes that I will have opportunities to share the gospel with them. One day, after the school carnival some of the moms invited me over for a drink afterwords. ther was a time in my life when I might have felt uncomfortable with that and avoided that situation. But, I leaped at this opportunity to hang out with them. The hostess offered me a beer. I opted for Diet Coke, because I don’t happen to like beer, but I know I could have chosen beer in good conscience…maybe next time I will have some. After all, Jesus turned the water into wine, not grape juice. If they decide to go to get a bite to eat sometime, but sit and have a drink at the bar first, I could do that in good conscience too. It’s very possible that this will come up. I wouldn’t want to miss out on that oppotunity to spend time with them. So far, because I have tried to attend everything they’ve invited me to, I’ve been building great friendships with them, which hopefully will lead to great opportunities to share the gospel.
Here’s another example (since you mentioned missionaries in Kenya). A couple who were serving as missionaries in Kenya and Afganistan, recently stayed with my parents as they came back to the states. The woman told us of many of her experiences. When she was done I said, “I’ll tell you about my mission field next door. I proceeded to tell her about the contractor who is attending a cult church who’s been working on the house next door, whos wife left him, and because of this I’ve had the priviledge of sharing the gospel with him extensively, and building a good friendship with his friend who lives in the house next door as well. This missionary woman’s one comment to me was, “When are you going to stop sharing the gospel with men?”. I was a little taken back, but I responded, “When God stops leading men to me to share the gospel with.” Apparently she did’nt think this was a ‘holy’ thing for a woman to do. I have never told God that I’m not available to share the gospel with half the world’s population, because they aren’t of my gender. Only to say that it is possible that the missionarries may miss opportunities to share the gospel because they are “too holy”.
I continued to build that friendship with those two men, and eventually the woman next door as well. I even went out to breakfast with those men several times, with my preschooler.
Tonight I received word that that man in the cult, whom I’ve come to know well, has lost his son. Today his son died in a quad-runner accident. I was able to call this man today. I will attend the funeral. I’m still praying for his salvation. I will have more opportunities to share with him because I didn’t worry about how all of this might look to anyone, I want to serve Jesus without reserve
I’ve been told my computer time is up. I want to
allen on 24 Feb 2008 at 1:50 pm #
Thanks Susan
wife and mother on 25 Feb 2008 at 9:40 am #
Again, Allen has voiced my thoughts.
I do think in embracing freedom in Christ, caution must be exercised. Whereas legalism is afraid of no rules, it appears that freedom in Christ is afraid of having rules.
I do agree that loving and serving God is of the upmost importance.
Steve Moore on 26 Feb 2008 at 8:47 am #
Allen and others,
I think you’re seeing liberty and holiness as mutually exclusive while Dan is not. This seems to be a big misunderstanding.
Liberty and holiness are not mutually exclusive, but rather both are a gift of God to us and we should not nullify either by attempting to legislate either of them.
Legalism is not just making laws where there are none, but also in incorrectly thinking that following good laws is what produces holiness.
cheers,
-steve
Avoid Every Appearance of Evil! - Principal Behrens Gruen Von on 03 Mar 2008 at 6:39 pm #
[...] Avoid Every Appearance of Evil! When Christian leaders talk about how to live a godly life, they eventually turn to the gray areasthose things that are right for some but wrong for others. You know the list: drinking, smoking, watching R rated movies, playing cards, dancing, using colorful language, listening to Country-Western music (OKthat last one is not a gray area; it should be taboo for everyone), etc. Thats the short list. And the way the instruction on such matters goes is all too often along these lines: First, [...]
Garden Fountain Freak on 10 Mar 2008 at 4:37 pm #
Garden Fountain Freak
Although i totally disagree with you, i still appreciate you\’re post. (but you\’re wrong here
)
Dan Wallace on 10 Mar 2008 at 4:45 pm #
Freak, perhaps you might want to give a little justification for your view—especially an exegetical justification. Not too many people will think that some who doesn’t give his or her name has a compelling argument by simply saying “you’re wrong.”