How I love simplicity.

You and me both!  Jesus was a simple man on earth, even though He is the Son of God!  I was born in a hospital, but he was birthed in a stable.  That means I didn’t start out simple enough! 

Yep, simple.  I’m with you, Stunned.  I love Jesus, and I like pizza and chocolate (not together, of course).  I love people and try to leave the fragrance of Christ wherever I go.  Aw, blessed simplicity…

And pumpkin pie.

I like Jesus and pie.

That there’s the depths of my theology.  Jesus loves me, this I know for the bible tells me so.  Little ones to Him belong.  They are weak but He is strong.

How I love simplicity.

(And pie.)

It’s great.

But I do think the church should not be afraid to let people think for themsleves and encourage free-thinking..that means not having approved reading lists, not being afraid of this blog and others like it, etc. Of course that also means not being power-hungry, paranoid, control freaks or into shepherding. Hence, the reason SGM never speaks of the incident, or many, many other things. Good grief, if they don’t want to discuss Noel’s story publicly and feel they need to do damage control…well…

Any issues I have with the reformers has more to do with their doctrine. The purtians always get lumped into the reformers because they tend to be, well, reformed.

A good question about calvin would be why isn’t the fact he had someone bruned at the stake talked about in discussions about him? That would be an important aspect of his life. It’s like trying to study King David without talking about the whole bathsheba incident

I actually agree with most of your observations abut the Puritans.  I mentioned the Reformers because someone mentioned Calvin’s burning of Cervetus who’s writings were heretical and he then dared to attend a church in Geneva after being warned to never visit the city.

Freedom-

I agree-I think it’s ironic that the New World Puritans did the exact same thing to dissenters that the Church of England and the Monarchy did to them.  But that’s my point-every church movement exists in a culture with many cultural assumptions.  How many modern day Christians mix nationalism with the Kingdom of God?  That’s all-hope I didn’t muddy the waters…

I suppose I have been intrigued by the historical accounts that detailed personal interactions with the Puritans (I don’t have a beef with the Reformers, not sure how they got lumped in with the Puritans, but rather agree with much of what Taking Note said about being grateful for these men and women for our present heritage of faith, not a religious system of works)

but when we read history, we are indebted to the personal accounts, ultimately, of those eyewitnesses to the outworkings of the doctrines the Puritans taught. I mean that when I read Valley of Vision today, or John Owen, or any other writings of these men and women who we now refer to as Puritans, there is a sharp disconnect that unfortunately, we are unable to overcome as a result of our present inability to interact with them personally. Our interactions are limited to the words and teachings of dead men.

It has only been my modern-day interactions with people who have adopted their teachings that I have realized that what I now see firsthand (as the practice of the doctrines they emphasized) does indeed coincide with many of the historical accounts of interaction that were based on eyewitnesses or their time. Fruit eventually shows up – you can’t see fruit in the teachings themselves, but we can see it when we examine the application of teachings and beliefs. (by the way, still wishing for that discussion with you canary that you alluded to earlier back about examining fruit, was looking forward to your thoughts on it when it came up! I know Stein isn’t posting anymore, but that was a worthwhile topic to explore together here I thought!)

Simply put, I once read ABOUT the Puritans without knowing their teachings and passed judgment about what their focus was, taking the word of others alone who witnessed it. Then I became familiar with their teachings, embraced them because they “seemed” good (a.k.a having the appearance of godliness but denying the power thereby) But after some time practicing their teachings myself, and then seeing them played out to their logical conclusions in terms of application, what I saw in myself and others was indeed what Paul saw when he wrote to Titus: (1:15)

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.”

Paul is of course in this context speaking about a rebellious people of the circumcision group. What is interesting is that he brings up the conscience, faith, and actions here. We know if our conscience is clear, is is only by faith and not by works. And whatever does not come from faith is sin, this we also know. So purity comes ultimately, not by actions, but by having faith and a subsequent clear conscience. This is NOT what the Puritans taught. Their focus was on actions, deeds, works..the conscience was unable to be clear because of the constant focus on indwelling sin – which is contrary to the gospel which says that Christ died so that our consciences would be clear before God and bring us into right standing with Him, and we would no longer be under the law..so I see it as lack of faith that was ultimately the problem of the Puritans. They were legalists.

that is just my opinion and perspective after studying history, their teachings, applying them, watching for fruit, and studying the Word of God, so to others perhaps this is worth a cup of coffee – and I’m not talkin’ Starbucks either! But to me, this truth was a revelation of what it truly means to be justified (clean conscience before God) by faith.

Hey Musicman – It’s all good to have differences of opinion Diversity is a GOOD THING (could you ever imagine cj or shank saying something like that?) The interesting thing is that the puritans that came to the new world who faced persecurtion from the monarchy (and the churchof england, that was ruled by the monarchy) did the exact same thing one they where in charge?

I do agree with Juli about Valley of Vision and Owens SIn and Temptation.  I found them discouraging and boring-but that’s me.  And I do think that often times the Puritan movement fell into legalism and other times they merely repeated the sins of their culture-much like most of us do also.  Burning people at the stake is certainly horrific and clearly sinful-especially over doctrinal differences-but in the time of the Puritans-this was a commonplace practice for both civil and church authorities throughout the Western world.  The Puritans and Reformers many times faced this same type of persecution and is one of the reasons the Pilgrims came to the “New World”.  Not to regurgitate-but if you really need to know-their are some great books, both Christian and Non that do a really good job of explaining the Puritans (both Old World and New) in their historical context, warts and all.  The truth is out their-as they say.

The problem I see with SG’s use of any historical church movement or confession, is that they do not equip their people to discern the good and the not so good found in any church at any point in church history.  Heck-the New Testament church was a mess most times (read Paul’s letters some time).  If they truly want to help people learn from a historical movement like the Puritans or the Reformers-than they need to teach it with humility and the nuance required to make it helpful and not with broad sweeping absolutes about how great the Puritans were without acknowledging that some Puritans and some Puritan practices/doctrines would not be helpful or Godly for today’s believer to imitate.  I’m not holding my breath-SG is not known for allowing nuance in their teaching-but what a loss for them and their flocks…

Anyway-abother unrelated question-

How can CLC say they are a non-religous entity?  That ranks up their in the “George Orwell” type of statements-can someone explain that one too me?  I am just baffled about how a church can make such a claim….

I’ve experienced some of this myself lately – and it is very much like withdrawal from crack or any other addiction – disclaimer: I’ve never been a actual crack addict personally, but addictive behaviors in general, no matter the source of individual dependency, is unhealthy and detrimental dependency on something else, and eventually the “something else” enslaves you and you are an addict. I’ve certainly been enslaved to many things before..the Bible calls this idolatry I believe? Just sayin’ . . .

So I think “SGM Crack” is a good way to describe what I’ve been through..

Me: These would be the parents that never had a strong-willed child, or a child with a development delay that slows the processing of what you say to them. That is just insane – if a parent loves their kids, works with their kids to raise them right, they (in the sgm defender’s words) get over it. The developmental delay is a real thing that exists more than most people are aware – it has to do with their the way their brain works and neurons fire. Those kids need different strategies, beating them every time to don’t obey immediately, cheerfully and completely does not work. You have to do different things in order to stimulate the growth of their brain pathways so that they are OK as they grow up. When you beat them, they do not understand why they are being spanked, when they are diciplined, they don’t know why and don’t even think they did anything wrong because it isn’t processing. (I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS THE CASE WITH YOUR KIDS) and could be with the others they have judgemental attitudes towards because the kids don’t obey “immediately, cheerfully and completely”. These people could use a little (OK, alot) of the back end of the Lord’s staff, if you know what I mean

Taking Note – I am not condeming you, I am ALL FOR discussion!!!!! I have NO ISSUES listening to other view points!!!!!!!!! I just happened to not be a fan of the puritans or reformed theology. Everything the puritans did was based around salvation (ok, so they called it “justification”) by works. Not much different than the Catholic church (sacraments, etc). A whole of guilt trips to go around. The start of the puritanical movement (and Calvin’s own work to boot) is not far removed from the catholic church at the time. My biggest issues with the catholic church are the guilt (there is a reason for the expression “catholic guilt”) and legalism of how to be “justified”.

The puritans also used guilt and confronting those other felt where “in sin”. Granted, some of those were bruned at the stake and SGM just shuns people that don’t “repent”. But it is heavily steeped in the common defination of legalism we are using on this blog.

sgm talkes about grace too – but look how it is applied, the same way the puritans applied it – since juli tackled that one, I won’t beat a dead horse.

The issue is that the puritans applied the writings on grace to works for “justification”, even though last I checked some guy name Jesus took care of that when he was executed.

Another interesting factoid, many of the puritan leaders felt the state should punish people for “sin”, and they did just that when the “great migration” of the puritans to america (did you know they primarily came as families, because the woman was expected to keep house and “home-school” the children?).

As far as the “chew the meat, spit out the fat and bones” – sure, I can do that, but when it is a really fatty, grizzly, dry piece of meat I will selected something else. It’s kind of like this show currently airing on the Smithsonian channel called “Decoding Christianity” – some really good insight into Christian history. Not all of the guy’s facts are straight – like when he called Mary Magdalen the “repentant prostitute”, which I do not see as true, but more manufactured primarily by Pope Gregory back in the day as a way to not supress the role a woman had in Jesus’ ministry and life. Heck, she was up with the Apostles (the REAL apostles, not the sgm self proclaimed variety) received the power of the holy spirit and gifts to boot!

I like the discussion, please do not think I am attacking you. This is a good thing – better to discuss than to attack. I am not going to call you a “heretic” because we disagree.

“Should” be the source of joy.  Are they on crack?

I have not read this work, but I’ve read enough of Owen to hedge a hefty bet that his backdrop and presupposition for saving grace is our own sinfulness and ongoing recognition of it, and that even grace itself is not defined by looking to the character of God Himself, but rather characterized and understood only in the context of OUR WRETCHED HEARTS..am I right? Is He able to explain what grace is and how that transofrmation takes place without using personal guilt as leverage?

this is the problem with the vast majority of Puritan mindsets which is so pervasive in their writings- instead of the starting point being the character of God and who He is, these doctrines assume the starting point is US and that is the first mistake. They presuppose:

1) We cannot really know God apart from knowing our sin
2) it is only in the context of our own character (or lack thereof) that we can comprehend what grace is

I say – rubbish! Both are outright distortions of Scripture – Romans 1, Jeremiah 32 and many other places in Scripture clearly teach us and show us that we CAN know who God is (and his eternal attributes!) apart from an awareness of sin. Jesus came and died to cleanse us from all unrighteousness and justify us..to cleanse our consciences, remove the guilt…so why does man teach the complete opposite? That this very GUILT that Jesus died to remove from those with faith, man heaps upon those members of the household of faith IN ORDER to produce repentance of some sort? I’m lost here. I thought the Word said it was God’s KINDNESS that leads us to repentance, not our guilty consciences..it is the knowledge of God and His character that promotes and encourages a response of faith.

Talk about undermining the work of Christ and preaching another gospel..the Puritans did.

I despise parents judging other parents.  I despise the memories of myself doing that when I was a Pharisee.  You are in a unique place with your kids, and are trusting God as you raise them.  It hasn’t been easy, yet you stick with it.  You stick with the Lord.  Your way has been rougher than some.  No one who has not walked in your house slippers (more comfy than shoes!) can judge you.  Jesus does not judge, but saves.  How should we, His children, dare to behave any differently?  Remember, some of those holier than thou leaders’ kids have had some serious troubles in their late teens.  How to explain that?

Grrrrrr…if I could stand in front of those who made you feel like a rotten parent, I’d shake them til all that leaven flew out their ears!  You keep trusting God and loving your kids.  It will all turn out right in the end, because all things work out for good for those who love God!  Hugs, Ellie

Thanks for responding.

“I understand and appreciate the heart behind your distinction between Jesus and “doctrine” (by which you seem to mean big thick books of human theologies and dogmatic personal viewpoints). But this is not a distinction that exists in the Scriptures. ”

This is NOT what I was saying.  I love scripture, and do my best to understand it.  Doctrine today, on the other hand, is something that men use to try to explain their understanding of scripture.  The problem is, we don’t all agree with some interpretation, which is why we need the eyes and ears of the Holy Spirit.  Puritan, reformed, whatever…seem to interpret scripture more in a legalistic manner, which is not what Jesus intends for us to do. 

Respectfully, you also speak of Jesus as though we should not or cannot have a live, personal relationship with Him, where He speaks, we listen, He comforts, we worship, etc.  I saw a lot of this in PDI before we left.  The leaders seemed condescending towards our heart for the Lord.  We weren’t throwing out scripture, mind you.  We were trying to live it, and were not allowed to follow our own consciences.  If I have misunderstood this about your post,  I apologize.

“The apostle Paul writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 to shut down legalism and foolishness and all that he says “is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”

The glorious gospel Paul speaks of here is what I have been posting about a lot.  My point is always, legalism is contrary to good doctrine.  It is a false gospel, the leaven mixed in with the whole lump of dough, the stuff that Paul urged churches to purge themselves of.  The Puritans may have had some good doctrine, but they also had a bunch of the leaven, which eventually grew and grew, till the whole dough was fermented.  Then it died out.  Read 1 Cor. 5:6-7.

Today, men are reviving some of this doctrine, the good with the leaven  That leaven has proceeded to do what it always does – it is fermenting the gospel.  No longer are we free to follow our own conscience, or listen to the Holy Spirit (guided by scripture, of course), nor are we, in controlling churches, allowed to have Jesus alone as our Mediator.  This is very troubling, and faith destroying.  How many people have come on here and other blogs, saying that when they left or were “dismembered”, their faith in God was nearly gone, because of all the abuses they had experienced or seen?   These are the people we want to reach out to, to make sure they understand that the false gospel (legalism) was what nearly destroyed them, not the “glorious gospel of the blessed God”.

So, take what is good with the Puritans and the Reformed guys, but beware of all the leaven that caused their groups to die out.  It will happen again to any group that practices their ways but are not wise enough to purge out the leaven.  I have to go out for now, but look forward to your response.  I have learned from your posts, coming a little closer to understanding why SGM has become the taskmaster most of us here see now.  If you are not one of those people, please, I apologize again. 

Freedom….this explains alot of what I experienced….the judgmental and dismissive attitudes of other parents who had been blessed with “easy” children towards me and my kids when I did everything that they did in parenting X10. >sigh<

I didn’t see your second comment until now. Thank you for the thoughtful tone of your question.

I won’t give a bibliography of Puritan writings right now (frankly, I’m not a big one for recommending that people plow into long, old writings that are often dense, wordy, and hard to understand ).

What I will say is that the vast majority of preserved, early Puritan writings are not about sin, wrath, and judgment the way many state or imply. The largest amount of their works is about Christ, the Gospel, the work of the Holy Spirit, etc.

John Owen is an ironic example. I don’t particularly enjoy plowing through his thousands of hard-to-read written pages, so I rarely do; but contrary to what many would assume, he wrote far more about Christ and the Gospel than he did about sin. His two large volumes on sin and mortification are, in my opinion, unfortunate in a number of ways; but they are also a small fraction of what he wrote.

Owen himself (a man who is passionately despised, I would guess, by many on this site) wrote a rich exploration of how our lives are saved by grace and transformed by grace in his book “The Glory of Christ”. It is a deeply thoughtful (still dense and hard to read – as was the style of the era) exposition of the beautiful vision for Christian living that is offered in 2 Corinthians 3:18.

The problem is that most folks only know the Puritans through bookstores, sermon quotes, or “Valley of Vision” type repackaging that reflects more of the perspectives and tone of the recommender/quoter than it reflects of the heart of the Puritans and their library full of writings.

For that matter, even a “Valley of Vision” re-packaging offers some of the delightful, grace-absorbed material that you ask for, though not with the richness that a bigger picture of the Puritans and their hearts would offer.

I understand and appreciate the heart behind your distinction between Jesus and “doctrine” (by which you seem to mean big thick books of human theologies and dogmatic personal viewpoints). But this is not a distinction that exists in the Scriptures. 

Doctrine (a biblical term) simply means a teaching or a life affecting truth. Jesus – who He was, what He did, how He loved, wept, died, lived and ascended in glory to prepare a wedding feast for His beloved bride…this is eternal and life transforming “doctrine”. We know of Jesus and the hope of life only because it was doctrine – that is, teachings sent by God through His Son, prophets, apostles, and His people.

The apostle Paul writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 to shut down legalism and foolishness and all that he says “is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”

You see, your love for Jesus and all the joyful realities He brings to your life is a love of “the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel.”

That’s all I meant (and continue to mean) by saying that if you kill the doctrines (eternal truths/teachings) that the Puritans loved most you kill the hope of your soul. It is because the teachings from God’s amazing Word that these folks loved most (for all their flaws and other stumblings) were the “doctrines” from God of delightful, saving grace, through Jesus alone, by faith alone, to the glory of God alone.