Replies

Scripture emphasizes the need of Love in everything the Christian does (1Cor.13) and Faith (Rom.14:23). The mature Christian must always be asking if what he is doing has both those elements.

Well and good. But from the perspective of a church, love and faith are the means by which one discerns a "yes" or a "no." Thus, Paul can preach faith and love in one place, and cast certain factions or people out of the church in no uncertain terms.

As a practical example, suppose that representative of some activist group -- the homosexual agenda folks are very active these days, as are the labyrinth crowd -- come into your church and begin agitating for their particular agenda.

The primary purpose of Churches is to safeguard and propagate Right Teaching, and to protect church doctrine. It implies not just faith and love, but also a set of rules to which the church adheres.

When confronted by activists, your church will have to say either yes or no. The question is: how does a church walk the fine line between pharisaism on the one hand, and abject surrender on the other?

The article is strangely silent on the matter.

The article is strangely silent on the matter.

As Ward Smythe said, the article is really aimed specifically at the Holiness movement and its obsession with outward actions as indications of spirituality. Dr. Reasoner most certainly is not advocating any surrender to liberalism, but simply trying to call the Holiness movement back to its roots in Methodism's grand call to "spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land." Hard to do that when you're so stuck on outward signs like not smoking or women not cutting their hair and wearing dresses.

Scripture emphasizes the need of Love in everything the Christian does (1Cor.13) and Faith (Rom.14:23). The mature Christian must always be asking if what he is doing has both those elements. Well and good. But from the perspective of a church, love and faith are the means by which one discerns a "yes" or a "no." Thus, Paul can preach faith and love in one place, and cast certain factions or people out of the church in no uncertain terms. As a practical example, suppose that representative of some activist group -- the homosexual agenda folks are very active these days, as are the labyrinth crowd -- come into your church and begin agitating for their particular agenda. The primary purpose of Churches is to safeguard and propagate Right Teaching, and to protect church doctrine. It implies not just faith and love, but also a set of rules to which the church adheres. When confronted by activists, your church will have to say either yes or no. The question is: how does a church walk the fine line between pharisaism on the one hand, and abject surrender on the other?

That is not a problem, since that is also done from love, a love of the sheep (1Pet.5:2, Acts.20:28, 1Tim.5:17, 2Tim.4:2, Tit.1:13)

This is not Pharisaism since it does not come from legalism, but from adhereing to the words of God. Pharisaism (as the article noted) is substituting the words of God for the traditions of men (Mk.7:7-9)

The article is strangely silent on the matter.

No, I think you have confused separation based on Biblical norms and standards with the imposing of manmade traditions. That is the essence of Pharisasim. John the Baptist was not a Pharisee, even though he was separated from normal society.