:: Some thoughts... ::

:: Saturday, September 18, 2004 ::

Warning: This post is strictly religously themed

On Purity And The Doctrine Of Accountability

In North American Christadelphian circles there is a great dispute between the so-called Unamended and the Amended. To the outsider this situation seems very confusing. These two groups both claim the name Christadelphian yet refuse to associate with one another. Their beliefs are largely the same except for a clause that was amended. Hence the notion of amended and unamended. So, ostensibly these two groups are arguing over this clause. Over a time a historic thing has been occuring. It is called reunion. Many Christadelphians realizing that the dispute is largely esoteric have been reconciled in union. And indeed have embraced one another in love. This polemic is not directed towards these people. It is directed toward those who hold on to the Pharasaic doctrine of purity. I purposely use the word polemic so one can understand this piece for what it is. It is argument coming from one side of the issue.

I see the brotherhood heading a unscriptural direction. I do not mean in this in detail of doctrine. I mean in it spirit of doctrine. Like the Pharisees that Jesus rails against, a good many Christadelphians have adopted a framework of legalistic purity at the expense of the true faith. This is what I call purity and the doctrine of accountability.
Purity in the sense that these Christadelphians seek to better themselves by exclusion. Their logic as best I can follow is that if they associate with "bad" people they themselves will become corrupted. Their cover is one of defending the faith. For example, if we let this divorced person into our meeting, we wil be corrupted by their presence.
Hmmm... I am not sure if that is what Jesus had in mind when he said the healthy do not need a doctor, but he had come for the sick.

First let's get this straight. It is not OUR church, meeting or whatever you want to call it. Jesus is the foundation, and we are the bride of Christ. We are God's children, not the serving brother's. Secondly, we are all bad people in a religous sense. For none of us is good. Ipso facto, what exact purity are we now defending on the basis of exclusion? Thirdly, how exactly is having a scarlet A sinner in our midst going to change our sinning nature? Is it going to make it worse?
I understand that marriage is to be encouraged and divorce should never be taken lightly. I think that all Christadelphians understand that. And by seeing what divorce has done, many "regular" people in America understand this too.
A better policy is one of pre-marital counseling. Should fellowship be conditional on this? No. People are free to take an offered hand and equally as free to refuse it.
I digress, I just wanted to illustrate that there are better ways to uphold marriage rather than blunt edge of disfellowship. I am not sure that this have ever worked to bring back marriage, but rather has served to drive away those who need it most. If this is purity in action, I would rather be dirty.
Purity also emphasizes rules. And encourages the very people Jesus preaches against. How many things are not discussed within Christadelphia that are very real and very present problems? I can name, let's start with my favorites, sex, drugs and rock and roll. My parents are relatively liberal as far as Christadelphians go, and I never received and never discussed with my parents anything about sex, beyond my Dad's famous comment, that if I spend too much time with a girl, I might get carried away. Well, I spend all day with women at work, and so far this hasn't let to anything untoward going on at my desk. I understand his point, and there is something to it, but let's be honest and straightforward here.
On to drugs, how many Christadelphians (baptized and unbaptized) use and abuse drugs. I would say it's something of an issue, but this is never discussed in meetings, or mentioned in Sunday School for young people would never do such a thing.
My point here is not so much specific issues, but an attitude. An attitude, that well good Christadelphian raised kids don't do those things. An attitude my Uncle Bob perfectly laid out to me at Bible School this year. The young people (defined as 14-21) and said that they were getting nothing from the 4th class at this Bible School. It was a discussion class where the young and old were mixed. We were discussing Malachi and all it's intricate details. Half the stuff was a snooze to me and a good many other adults. And it was way over the head of most 14 year olds.
In fairness, let me repeat what my uncle said. He said that the class was a way for the young and old to bond and that they might learn something. Ok, given there was a mix of young and old people in the classes, even though many of the young people were skipping class. True, I can put oil and water in a bowl too, but that doesn't make it mix. Second, he argued they might learn something. True, hard to argue with that, but I also might learning something from kicking my bed and breaking my toe.
His final message was that they should just deal with it. HELLO!!! This is why we are losing so many young people. Christadelphians are not people friendly. We don't deal with people with problems as a whole. There are a great many exceptions, my parents being one of them. Don't get me wrong, I am all for tradition, but Sunday School and preaching have to be relevant. I can't speak Russian to a Mexican and expect him to get the gospel. I might impart one thing though, I am a real nut.
All I am saying, is that if you want to reach people you have to speak their language. You have to tailor the message of the gospel to what is relevant to them. You have to deal with the issues that they are dealing with. With teens, this might mean sex, drugs and rock and roll. Talking about the issues isn't just saying no to peer pressure. I wonder how many people didn't use drugs because of "see red, say no." Likely, zero. My point is we need to educate our young people, why it's good to wait till your married, not just, hey don't do it, and never talk about it again. And if they do slip up, parents, be available, uncritical and ready to listen. It's not something one can undo, but it can be a lesson. Same with drugs or whatever. Don't just say drugs are bad. Say, hey I understand you. God is listening to you. Some kids will rebel, and run away. It doesn't mean we lock the door for the sake of our own purity. It's ridiculous and most important of all, it is un-Christ like. Yes, I did write that and I do mean it. Jesus didn't love us for no good reason. He didn't die so we could hide with the truth of his sacrifice in our cellars waiting for Armageddon to arrive. He loved us so we could know how to love others. He died, so that we may live, and get this, even tell others about it. Purity is not about keeping our lamps hidden so they don't get blown out, but letting it shine forth so all can see.

So what is wrong with the current attitude of purity? It's great to be "pure" and all, and it's great that you're holier than me, but so what? So now, you can feel all righteous and self justified? Fine, read Job again and we can talk. Read the life Jesus. It'd be all pretty boring if Jesus decided that well since preaching was tough and he was a bit afraid, he might as well not do it. Better for his spiritual health to stay home and reflect on it. This is not only the opposite of what Jesus commanded us, but it dulls the values and arguments we claim to hold dear. A mind is a terrible thing to waste as it said, but so is the truth. If you are keeping it to yourself out of fear, you are wasting it. Why do you fear? I ask that question. In fact, I pose it to all who use disfellowship as a weapon? What are you scared of?

And on to accountability. Accountability is a foolish doctrine. It is always seeking


:: Nathan 1:35 PM [+] ::
...