Christian Liberty,etc Question

[LadyFlynt]

Okay, I know everyone is thinking, oh no...here she goes on another tangent. I don't want this to be one. I don't want it to be a debate of other defending what they do. I just need some help here.

A friend of ours called last night to ask my hubby some questions. He has known us for years and all those years I have worn dresses/skirts and covered my head.

He is in seminary. Ever since he mentions things in his life to his professors and whatever they say is gospel. Sometimes he works through it and comes out on one side or the other...but at times it is blind insistance.

Well, the subject was on dress. I wasn't on the phone and therefore wasn't allowed to respond for myself...though he says he wants to get together with his wife and myself included.

Anyhow the conversation basically ended up being that he accused my hubby of not defending his stand properly (which is not true and neither did he defend his position well...sounded more accusatory than normal for him), that he and his wife were influenced by us-but because of us have decided not to do as we do (we never asked them, never brought it up, I don't ever push this on someone). He says we are inconsistant....the ONLY inconsistancy he could find though is that though we don't typically swim...we have allowed the children swim lessons at the Y and to swim a couple of times in a close friend's pool in a private backyard. No adults and the children are very young (ie not developed). The reason for the swim lessons were because I was raised that it is a very important skill to be able to swim for safety reasons and sorry but there are no more private Little House on the Prairie creeks to swim in...nor can I afford the expensive neck to ankle plus skirt swimsuits some ultra conservative groups make for their daughters (and sorry, but swimming in coulottes is impractical and can be just as immodest).

My husband never criticized this friend's wife...stating that she does actually dress modest even when not in skirts, but that this is the standard he has set for our family. Also is the issue of men's clothing being different from women's...again a standard we have set (long time ago) for our own family. We have not criticized anyone else for doing differently. In fact, at our last church there were some girls who would come to me to talk (knowing full well that I don't agree with them on the clothing issue) because I was the only one who DIDN'T have some nasty remark to make about their clothing (they'd had anonymous letters...but I was taking into consideration where I was at at their ages and that their doctrine was sound and trusting that the Lord will draw them in that area in his time). Hello, I was a teen too...in blue jeans...and I know what guys thought when I was younger. I just don't want to be a stumbling block and this is what I have chosen.

Don't I have the "Christian Liberty" to do this without being accuse of "legalism"? Legalism is doing something as a means of attaining or maintaing salvation...or taking things to the extreme...I don't dress amish (anymore)...if you were to see me you would just think I was a nicely dressed lady (on a dressy day) or a teacher/homeschool mom in a typical jumper (on a casual day). I wear earrings and sometimes a little makeup (I even sell makeup!). And isn't our "Christian Liberty" the Liberty to do what HE would have us to...not to intentionally do otherwise?

Okay...thanks for letting me vent (I'm just a little bit hurt over this)...feel free to help out in how to handle this and where ever he may be coming from.

[Edited on 6-2-2005 by LadyFlynt]

[Edited on 6-2-2005 by LadyFlynt]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Okay, but how should I approach this? Should I ask about where this is suddenly coming from and if from a professor, how do I answer?

He takes education to be above all...if it weren't for street ministry, he admitted that he might not have even taken the time to get to know dh as dh doesn't have a degree.

Education is excellent, but man is still fallible...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Colleen,
Seems to me like you have light-years on this fellow, in this area anyway, as far as Christian maturity goes. I'm not trying to inflate your ego, or score friendly-points either. I'm just calling like I see it.

The way you described the situation, you have placed keeping God's commands above all things, not questioning his clear directives. And as a matter of godly living, wisely established your house rules, within the boundaries of Christian liberty (that are subject to amendment, revision, and deletion) as aids to obedience and orderly life. On matters both controverted (but not essential for salvation) and covenient you have refrained from proclaiming a "thus saith the Lord." Sounds like you are doing things right. And sounds like this friend is trying to legislate outside his sphere of authority, and raising a commandment of men to the level of a scriptural precept.

Tell me, do you think the issue this friend raised is the "real" issue? That's what I'd ask him if he brought it up again. Otherwise I'd never raise the issue again and let it slide. Life's too short to worry about other people's hangups.

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Bruce, a humble thank you for answering. Don't worry, my ego is as deflated as it can get right now. I went through the "look what I'm doing, I'm better than those who don't" and "I want to be with others that do as I do" years ago...and the Lord knock me flat on my face because of it! I thank Him for that.

No, I don't think that my "inconsistancy" is the reason. But that hurt, and it pounded the nail in the coffin on the children's swim lessons .

I can only think of two reasons that it is a big deal...and I have a hard time believing the first as we've been friends so long and only NOW is it an issue.

#1 the comparative thing...anything we do different makes it look as though we think that they are wrong or bad.

#2 they want to be convinced, but we have to make a better arguement than whoever (with a degree) does.

I'm really frustrated...

 

[JohnV]

Colleen:

Like it or not, what you do makes a statement. Though you practice to be inobstrusive, yet it cannot be helped: you practice what you believe, and that is a challenge to someone who believes differently. This in not about you challenging someone else's practices; its about someone being challenged by yours. There's a difference.

As to your second possibility, it is actually not that hard to come up with a better argument than a person in a position of authority, if you are right. And you don't have to disrespect his position or his argument to do so either. It is merely a matter of categorization. It is often practiced that a person puts his authoritative position behind his argument, rather than having a good argument. Why is it any less such a case in matters such as the wearing of clothes?

It is my guess that you are being tested for your own firmness in your beliefs. The accusations are a mere cover-up for something more deep-seated, just as Bruce said. I agree with his answer completely. What you are hurt over is the apparent break in relationship; the confrontation rather than the issue itself. Otherwise, it seems that you may think you've gotten over the "better-than-thou" attitude, but you really haven't. You're still trying to impose upon others by being somewhat flagrant about your own practices.

But I don't take this to be the case. Rather I think that the other party is just put off; or is really trying to press your husband into giving a more solid answer, especially in answer to insidious attacks from without, or by a third party. And he is likely misrepresenting you practice by making it appear as obtrusively practiced. But the outward attack is actually part of the more solid answer your friend is looking for: why does the difference in practice or view elicit such an underhanded approach? Because it is weak, and has nothing firm to stand on? So we need to categorize the arguments carefully, and not to make the same mistakes in return.

This is all in follow-up of Bruce's excellent post. Not knowing more of the details, I can't really get more specific than this.

 

[panta dokimazete]

wow. If the biggest challenge this guy can find to assert his "knowledge" is this issue, then he has a serious "vision" problems...

He takes education to be above all...if it weren't for street ministry, he admitted that he might not have even taken the time to get to know dh as dh doesn't have a degree.

I find this statement particularly troubling in light of 1 Corinthians 8:1 and...

1 Corinthians 13:2
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

It does not seem he is approaching your family in love...I am sorry.

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

No, I don't think that my "inconsistancy" is the reason. But that hurt, and it pounded the nail in the coffin on the children's swim lessons .

Please, do not let this guys accusations deter you from something important like learning to swim. Live to please God, not freinds. I don't see how it is inconsistent at all to teach your children to swim. I would rather have my children suffer a little "immodesty" for a few lessons than to drown.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Thank you, all. Dh and I are going to let it go till it is brought up by them again. And (I think dh was just upset last night) dh has agreed to let the children continue to learn to swim (he read the thread). We grew up knowing kids that had drowned at the local lake, etc. (now if only dh was willing to jump in and learn to swim).

Also, John was right, I was more upset due to the conflict of it being within this particular friendship. I am secure in what I do. I believe I found an even balance in both obeying scripture and my husband vs stand out/look at me legalism.

Again, thank you for the encouragement. This friend does have a lot of love for others...I was just pointing out the one bias that he has admitted he struggles with and how it tends to play into these discussions. He does "use his degree" to make it look like that automatically trumps whatever we say if he is struggling with an issue. And it just perplexed me that he would bring this up NOW in this manner.

Also, I wanted to understand the "because of me". But just because I may have made a mistake somewhere doesn't mean that you don't do something that is good because I do it and make mistakes or struggle at times. It was interesting, our pastor must have tapped the phone line, his sermon today was about how we should live...and he got into modesty in dress (not prescribing what others should wear, but mentioning what is the point in showing what you shouldn't)...and he talked about the grace given to do that which He requires of us...justice, integrity, mercy, humbleness, etc. It is only by God's grace that I can do anything. I may have started out to try to please God, but I can't EXCEPT by His Grace.

 

[LadyFlynt]

done rambling.....

 

[fredtgreco]

Colleen,

Here is a short, but critical thing to remember:

Everyone feels at liberty to accuse others of "legalism." That is because in America today, "legalism" means being more strict than me (the accuser). The irony is that by that definition, EVERYONE is a legalist. You could just as easily point out a dozen or so ways that your friend is being a "legalist," I am sure - because he is undoubtedly more concerned with holiness in some area than someone who professes Christ.

What legalism really is, and why Paul warned so sharply against it, is thinking that what one does earns one favor with God. That is Biblical legalism. The Pharisees weren't legalists because they were strict - actually the Essenes were stricted in many ways - but because they thought their actions gave them standing before God.

If you don't think that - and I am persuaded by your comments that you do not, then you are not a legalist. Be clear in conscience. Christian liberty means not binding another's conscience, whether to looseness or strictness. Ironically, his attempts to bind your conscience to permissive actions is a violation of Christian liberty.

 

[LadyFlynt]

altach, Fred (thanks). One other thing that dh mention that this friend said was a "problem"....that we are in the Christian culture but should not (or that dh and I are) "being a sub-culture" (ie like the mennonites). This comment makes no sense either. We homeschool, they homeschool....that in and of itself is a sub-culture in this society. And isn't true Christianity a sub-culture anyway? We are not hiding out on a farm miles from the nearest town and refusing to look the locals in the eye (boy, I better stop there, my panic attacks may come back).

Is there some teaching about socialogical sub-cultures that I should know about or is this also a strawman/red herring? (personally I think it is an excuse...but need to have a response to this other than just saying that)

 

[fredtgreco]

Such a comment would have validity if you were completely inactive in your community, shunning them, etc.

Christian subculture is a bad thing when it is used to avoid contact with the world, even for evangelism. Hence you have Christian music, Christian schools, Christian movies, Christian books, etc, etc.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Such a comment would have validity if you were completely inactive in your community, shunning them, etc.

Christian subculture is a bad thing when it is used to avoid contact with the world, even for evangelism. Hence you have Christian music, Christian schools, Christian movies, Christian books, etc, etc.

Agreed! (good, I'm not totally off my rocker...)

[Edited on 6-2-2005 by LadyFlynt]