If you wandered around the blogsphere recently, you've seen the critical posts and counterposts about the purity movement. To be clear, I believe the Bible commands believers to flee sexual immorality. At the same time, I believe that the sin of sexual immorality is not beyond the reach of gospel.
However, as I pull out my worm-can opener, I think many of the criticisms are valid. Granted the purity movement is varied, but from what I have seen and read, there's too much emphasis on "doing it right" and very little gospel grace. Shame as a tactic to promote desired behavior is nothing short of legalism. I've seen people crushed under self-condemnation because they failed to live up to every jot and tittle and perceived themselves as "damaged" good. I've known others who have followed the prescription and expected heaven-on-earth only to be shocked when picture perfect courtship does not guarantee happily-ever-after.
As my daughter and I were discussing this, she made an interesting observation:
To borrow from Tim Keller who borrowed from Tertullian, just as Jesus was crucified between two thieves, there are two thieves trying to rob the gospel - antinomianism and legalism. If we don't use the gospel as our lens, we will swing to one side or the other. In the case of purity, the antinomian will minimize the sin; the legalist will try to impose rules and use shame to achieve the end. Neither is right because the former cheapens Christ's sacrifice for sin and the latter minimizes the power of the Gospel.
Speaking for myself, I am more inclined to swing to legalism. I wonder if part of it is an effort to not go the other way - a kind of over correction. You don't want to condone sin and you want to make sure that it's clearly understood, so you rub it in a bit longer than necessary to make your point. But isn't the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit enough to convict sin and bring change or do we need to add an extra dose of penance?
Maybe the solution is to climb off the pendulum once and for all and stand on the ground of the gospel instead.
However, as I pull out my worm-can opener, I think many of the criticisms are valid. Granted the purity movement is varied, but from what I have seen and read, there's too much emphasis on "doing it right" and very little gospel grace. Shame as a tactic to promote desired behavior is nothing short of legalism. I've seen people crushed under self-condemnation because they failed to live up to every jot and tittle and perceived themselves as "damaged" good. I've known others who have followed the prescription and expected heaven-on-earth only to be shocked when picture perfect courtship does not guarantee happily-ever-after.
As my daughter and I were discussing this, she made an interesting observation:
If the world puts something down, the answer isn't to make it into an idol. The solution is to exalt Christ because the problem isn't that the world disses something, the problem is they are rejecting the God who made it. You don't solve one sin with another sin (idolatry).Wise words I think.
To borrow from Tim Keller who borrowed from Tertullian, just as Jesus was crucified between two thieves, there are two thieves trying to rob the gospel - antinomianism and legalism. If we don't use the gospel as our lens, we will swing to one side or the other. In the case of purity, the antinomian will minimize the sin; the legalist will try to impose rules and use shame to achieve the end. Neither is right because the former cheapens Christ's sacrifice for sin and the latter minimizes the power of the Gospel.
Speaking for myself, I am more inclined to swing to legalism. I wonder if part of it is an effort to not go the other way - a kind of over correction. You don't want to condone sin and you want to make sure that it's clearly understood, so you rub it in a bit longer than necessary to make your point. But isn't the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit enough to convict sin and bring change or do we need to add an extra dose of penance?
Maybe the solution is to climb off the pendulum once and for all and stand on the ground of the gospel instead.
I am reminded that very few of our heroes of faith in the bible were "pure".
ReplyDeleteJust sayin......
To clarify, I agree with what you've said here. Grace is sufficient, but of course not a license to sin. BUT, God loves us regardless. Anything else would be conditional love. I think purity is great and to be preferred since it give us a clear conscience and will be at least one area in which we don't condemn ourselves.
ReplyDeleteAny of that make sense?
Rahab comes to mind, yet she was in the lineage of Jesus. I think I understand where you're coming from, Ma.
DeleteI want to promote purity too but as a fruit of the gospel, not a fruit of legalism. Because grace, as you said, isn't a license to sin but is the means whereby we can live godly lives in this present evil age. (Titus 2:11-12)
Very good!
ReplyDeleteLydia is a wise young woman, much like her mother!
ReplyDeleteVery wise words, from both you and Lydia.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy I sometimes use is that there are ditched on both sides of the road. I, for one, am more prone to falling into the legalism ditch.
Well said, I too tend towards the legalist vein...always trying to add to what Jesus has already done.
ReplyDeleteHi Persis! EXCELLENT article and very timely -- at least for me. At our young women's ministry we've been focusing our messages on the Gospel. We saw early on that most, if not all, could not articulate the Gospel. No one had ever explained it to them and so, as one might imagine most of the girls in our group are not saved. So, we've been hammering them with the Gospel each meeting. They have been engaged, and attentive but as far as being being regenerated -- well, we know that 'salvation is of the Lord." As for us, we just preach, right? Well, this upcoming Friday I truly felt we needed to have a discussion on Sexual Sin. I don't need to tell you why! I struggled with it because I wanted to stay on track - largely because I am so in agreement with your sentiments here! You've articulated it so beautifully! Anyway, I ultimately decided to have a candid discussion with the girls on the topic. As I prepare, I am so painfully aware that the danger of having a discussion about sexual sin to the unregenerate is that it becomes a list of rules, and do's and don'ts. So, I'm preparing and praying that the whole message be presented within the backdrop of a gospel of grace. By God's grace, I think we can strike that balance right from the "get go" as we present God's ideal as pictured in Genesis. Then we can work from there and explain how because of Adam's sin we are, apart from grace, all depraved and bound by sin. It is because of sin that the wrath of God is coming. The only hope and refuge is in Christ and His grace has come to teach us to live moral and upright lives. So, I'm still sorting it through but your message is very timely. Please pray for us on Friday night. Oh, and give a big hug to that wise woman Lydia!!!
ReplyDeleteI hear where you are coming from, Christina. Unbelievers need to hear that sin is sin and where our only hope lies. They certainly aren't going to get that from the culture! One frustrating aspect of the courtship books I read was when the authors gave examples of professing Christians with no conscience at all re: immorality, there was no confrontation to see if these kids were really saved to begin with. Because if they aren't, how could they do otherwise? Apart from the saving and keeping grace of God, there go I.
DeleteI will be praying for you on Friday. Love you, sister!