Inside and Outside the Cup

[Bootstrap]

Same here. Fo

r example, the church I am part of has a rule that you must wear black shoes to church services. I can guarantee you there isn't a single soul in the congregation that believes this is the only right way to interpret New Testament teaching on proper dress.

That is how I was taught. My mother's standard answer was, "this how we choose to honor Jesus." I had friends who's families were far more fundamentalist, but I think they were more the exception than the rule.

This is definitely what Martin is advocating - visible, cultural rules that differ among groups of Christians, without pretending that these rules are found in Scripture:

So then, let's be honest. All conservative Anabaptists maintain any number of practices that they value because, although not commanded by Scripture, they provide good cultural soil for a genuine Gospel experience. The insistence by some that they obey only clear biblical mandates is a very thinly disguised fiction. We actually all agree that some ways of doing things are just wholesome practices learned from a long look at experience and history. That long view helps us maintain highly commended Gospel principles by practices not explicitly commanded in the Bible.

I suspect that much is true of any true Christian church. We have concrete ways of living out the Gospel that may differ from other groups.

I found this more problematic:

The term "Pharisee" means "one who is separated." The Pharisees considered countercultural obedience to the Torah to be the heart of a godly life. Unlike the zealots, they rejected violent revolution and believed that God would overthrow their enemies without them resorting to worldly force.

As we noted, Jesus clearly supported this concept of cultural separation. In His day, such cultural separation was practiced by a very small minority, even as it is today. The Pharisees never numbered more than several thousand in Israel. In contrast to the Pharisees, the Sadducees acculturated with the surrounding Greek society, and by doing so they lost the essential truths of Judaism. This ruling class of Jesus' day, which included many of the priests, had rationalized their beliefs to make their religion fit the surrounding secular culture.

By preserving the true tenets of Judaism, the cultural norms of the Pharisees actually nurtured a faithful train of redemptionists looking for the Messiah, including Zacharias, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Joseph, Mary, Simeon, Anna, and the disciples. It is unfortunate that the hypocrisy of the Pharisees’ leaders has been used to daub all the Pharisees with the same brush and thereby caricature anybody who is serious about wholesome cultural norms.

Here, Martin seems to be holding up the Pharisees as an example of what true Christians should do. The Pharisees were the forefathers of modern Orthodox Judaism, which had plenty of hedges around the law, long lists of religious observances to follow, based on sometimes very strange interpretations of Scripture. So "do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk" really means keeping all meat and milk separate so that digestive juices will not cook them together, and that evolves into cultural practices of keeping plates separate depending on what is served with them, etc. The problem with this is that it leaves the plain meaning of Scripture in the dust, these clear rules and practices have taken over, leaving the original meaning in the dust. So I do not see Pharisees as a group we should copy.

I do not think that Jesus spoke positively of "the cultural norms of the Pharisees", and his defiance of these norms set him at odds with the Pharisees, who wanted to kill him. Healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners and tax collectors and Samaritans, letting his disciples eat without following the ceremonial washing rules ... these are all examples of Jesus violating these cultural norms.

Here is what Paul says about some of the cultural norms of the Pharisees:

Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

[ken_sylvania]

Gary, you've read the pamphlet, right? Does John D. really say what Bootstrap is claiming?

I haven't actually. But I have more confidence in John than to believe that is what he's implying.

A little history. The OP was in a thread that was about the booklet, and people in the thread were required to read the booklet before responding.

When Ken responded to my comment in Bunny Trails, I assumed he had read the booklet, and thought that my responses were not appropriate in that thread. But it looks like neither of you have read the booklet that inspired my comments. No wonder we are talking past each other!

Request: could people please read the booklet before responding in this side thread too?

Whatever. I never said or implied anything about thinking your comments in the other thread were out of line. I posted in bunny trails because I hadn't read the booklet. You wanted a new thread, which is fine, but you wouldn't have to try to push Gary and me out of this thread where we've participated vigorously in the discussion. Everything I said has no bearing on what John D. did or did not print in his book. I feel like I have just as much right to this thread as you do, but I won't insist on staying. It's my opinion that part of the reason you don't get more vigorous participation in your quest to "just discuss what the Scriptures say" is these kind of control tactics where you try to make everyone else do things the way you want them done.

[GaryK]

I found this more problematic:

The term "Pharisee" means "one who is separated." The Pharisees considered countercultural obedience to the Torah to be the heart of a godly life. Unlike the zealots, they rejected violent revolution and believed that God would overthrow their enemies without them resorting to worldly force.

As we noted, Jesus clearly supported this concept of cultural separation. In His day, such cultural separation was practiced by a very small minority, even as it is today. The Pharisees never numbered more than several thousand in Israel. In contrast to the Pharisees, the Sadducees acculturated with the surrounding Greek society, and by doing so they lost the essential truths of Judaism. This ruling class of Jesus' day, which included many of the priests, had rationalized their beliefs to make their religion fit the surrounding secular culture.

By preserving the true tenets of Judaism, the cultural norms of the Pharisees actually nurtured a faithful train of redemptionists looking for the Messiah, including Zacharias, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Joseph, Mary, Simeon, Anna, and the disciples. It is unfortunate that the hypocrisy of the Pharisees’ leaders has been used to daub all the Pharisees with the same brush and thereby caricature anybody who is serious about wholesome cultural norms.

Here, Martin seems to be holding up the Pharisees as an example of what true Christians should do. The Pharisees were the forefathers of modern Orthodox Judaism, which had plenty of hedges around the law, long lists of religious observances to follow, based on sometimes very strange interpretations of Scripture. So "do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk" really means keeping all meat and milk separate so that digestive juices will not cook them together, and that evolves into cultural practices of keeping plates separate depending on what is served with them, etc. The problem with this is that it leaves the plain meaning of Scripture in the dust, these clear rules and practices have taken over, leaving the original meaning in the dust. So I do not see Pharisees as a group we should copy.

I do not think that Jesus spoke positively of "the cultural norms of the Pharisees", and his defiance of these norms set him at odds with the Pharisees, who wanted to kill him. Healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners and tax collectors and Samaritans, letting his disciples eat without following the ceremonial washing rules ... these are all examples of Jesus violating these cultural norms.

I do not believe it was Jesus' defiance of these norms that set Him at odds with the Pharisees. All of the examples you give here, Jesus used to expose their hypocrisy and to show them what Paul describes as the "righteousness of the law" being at work. So it was their hypocrisy that set Jesus at odds with the hypocritical Pharisees, not His defiance of cultural norms. John Martin makes this clear. Jesus himself says that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

So, I reject the following characterization of John Martin's pamphlet and it further confirms in my mind that starting with inaccurate preconceived beliefs about plain people leads to such inaccurate characterizations. There are so many things Martin writes in the beginning of the pamphlet that should have dispelled the notion that he believes the following.

I am, however, disagreeing with John Martin's pamphlet, which implies that the New Testament is largely about creating an externally visible culture based on outside-the-cup cultural markers.

[Bootstrap]

Request: could people please read the booklet before responding in this side thread too?

Whatever. I never said or implied anything about thinking your comments in the other thread were out of line. I posted in bunny trails because I hadn't read the booklet. You wanted a new thread, which is fine, but you wouldn't have to try to push Gary and me out of this thread where we've participated vigorously in the discussion.

I'm not trying to push you out of the thread, but I am asking you to read the book before posting further in this thread. In most of this "vigorous participation", I think we have been talking past each other, and I suspect that's partly because you haven't read the book I we were discussing.

So, I reject the following characterization of John Martin's pamphlet and it further confirms in my mind that starting with inaccurate preconceived beliefs about plain people leads to such inaccurate characterizations.

Have you even read the pamphlet? If not, please do before posting in this thread again. When you have read the pamphlet, feel free to provide quotes that indicate I got it wrong. Because I really am responding to the pamphlet, not to any particular preconceived ideas I have about plain people.

It's possible that I am misunderstanding what he wrote, but so far, your approach in this thread does nothing to enlighten me. We mostly aren't even talking about the same things.

[GaryK]

So, I reject the following characterization of John Martin's pamphlet and it further confirms in my mind that starting with inaccurate preconceived beliefs about plain people leads to such inaccurate characterizations.

Have you even read the pamphlet? If not, please do before posting in this thread again. When you have read the pamphlet, feel free to provide quotes that indicate I got it wrong. Because I really am responding to the pamphlet, not to any particular preconceived ideas I have about plain people.

It's possible that I am misunderstanding what he wrote, but so far, your approach in this thread does nothing to enlighten me. We mostly aren't even talking about the same things.

Can you explain how I could write the following if I have not read the pamphlet?

There are so many things Martin writes in the beginning of the pamphlet that should have dispelled the notion that he believes the following.

[Bootstrap]

Can you explain how I could write the following if I have not read the pamphlet?

There are so many things Martin writes in the beginning of the pamphlet that should have dispelled the notion that he believes the following.

I did not know if you had read the entire pamphlet or just a few pages at the beginning. And it is the end of the pamphlet that I was talking about.

Here's how the section on the Pharisees ends:

It is unfortunate that the hypocrisy of the Pharisees' leaders has been used to daub all the Pharisees with the same brush and thereby caricature anybody who is serious about wholesome cultural norms."

The very next section has the title "Can we Learn from History", and it is an apologetic for emphasizing "external submission to common cultural practices". He criticizes churches that do not do this, and warns of consequences.

Here is the conclusion of the book:

Will we learn from the obvious examples of the Quakers, the Church of the Brethren, and the Methodists? Or will we depend on vague notions of Gospel simplicity and modesty and refuse to embrace cultural norms that make a tangible appeal of these virtues to the heart and mind? Will our descendants live with the blessings of a cultural integrity that solidifies common Gospel beliefs and values with common practices? Or will they die with the consequences of a shattered cultural integrity that finally loses the Gospel principles once complemented and supported by distinctive cultural norms? As for me and my house, we will choose the precious heritage of Anabaptist cultural integrity.

Strange to hear that phrase taken out of the original context - "As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord." And the claim that these are the things that solidify Gospel beliefs and values.

I don't see this emphasis on submission to tangible cultural norms in the New Testament. I see an emphasis on serving God, obedience, discipleship, etc. The first and second commandments are:

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

But love is not a vague feeling, it expresses itself in action. Submission to tangible cultural norms is not what makes this love real. Submission to tangible cultural norms is not what the New Testament teaches to transform our hearts. I cannot even think of a single passage in the New Testament that preaches submission to tangible cultural norms.

[GaryK]

Can you explain how I could write the following if I have not read the pamphlet?

There are so many things Martin writes in the beginning of the pamphlet that should have dispelled the notion that he believes the following.

I did not know if you had read the entire pamphlet or just a few pages at the beginning. And it is the end of the pamphlet that I was talking about.

And yet I responded to the very part you quoted, which was at the end of the pamphlet, and in that response I mention that John Martin makes something clear.

It seems clear to me that you assumed I hadn't read the entire pamphlet, going as far as telling me "When you have read the pamphlet...". These kinds of assumptions and habits get quite tiring and make having productive conversations quite difficult.

I'm reposting my original response, which you have yet to respond to.

I found this more problematic:

The term "Pharisee" means "one who is separated." The Pharisees considered countercultural obedience to the Torah to be the heart of a godly life. Unlike the zealots, they rejected violent revolution and believed that God would overthrow their enemies without them resorting to worldly force.

As we noted, Jesus clearly supported this concept of cultural separation. In His day, such cultural separation was practiced by a very small minority, even as it is today. The Pharisees never numbered more than several thousand in Israel. In contrast to the Pharisees, the Sadducees acculturated with the surrounding Greek society, and by doing so they lost the essential truths of Judaism. This ruling class of Jesus' day, which included many of the priests, had rationalized their beliefs to make their religion fit the surrounding secular culture.

By preserving the true tenets of Judaism, the cultural norms of the Pharisees actually nurtured a faithful train of redemptionists looking for the Messiah, including Zacharias, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Joseph, Mary, Simeon, Anna, and the disciples. It is unfortunate that the hypocrisy of the Pharisees’ leaders has been used to daub all the Pharisees with the same brush and thereby caricature anybody who is serious about wholesome cultural norms.

Here, Martin seems to be holding up the Pharisees as an example of what true Christians should do. The Pharisees were the forefathers of modern Orthodox Judaism, which had plenty of hedges around the law, long lists of religious observances to follow, based on sometimes very strange interpretations of Scripture. So "do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk" really means keeping all meat and milk separate so that digestive juices will not cook them together, and that evolves into cultural practices of keeping plates separate depending on what is served with them, etc. The problem with this is that it leaves the plain meaning of Scripture in the dust, these clear rules and practices have taken over, leaving the original meaning in the dust. So I do not see Pharisees as a group we should copy.

I do not think that Jesus spoke positively of "the cultural norms of the Pharisees", and his defiance of these norms set him at odds with the Pharisees, who wanted to kill him. Healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners and tax collectors and Samaritans, letting his disciples eat without following the ceremonial washing rules ... these are all examples of Jesus violating these cultural norms.

I do not believe it was Jesus' defiance of these norms that set Him at odds with the Pharisees. All of the examples you give here, Jesus used to expose their hypocrisy and to show them what Paul describes as the "righteousness of the law" being at work. So it was their hypocrisy that set Jesus at odds with the hypocritical Pharisees, not His defiance of cultural norms. John Martin makes this clear. Jesus himself says that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

I responded to this to show that I believe you are misunderstanding what John Martin is saying.

Do you still hold to the following assertion?

I am, however, disagreeing with John Martin's pamphlet, which implies that the New Testament is largely about creating an externally visible culture based on outside-the-cup cultural markers.

With all that you have said about this in this thread and others it seems pretty clear that you do not have a positive view about outside-the-cup cultural markers, which seems to be why you made this assertion. I do not believe John Martin believes that this is what the New Testament is largely about. The beginning of the pamphlet makes it clear why he wrote the pamphlet.

I don't know of any conservative Anabaptist who has had more to say about the importance of the Sermon on the Mount and the NT Kingdom of God for followers of Jesus than John Martin. That's not to say that I agree with everything he says, but it is to say that to make a negative assertion like this is to not understand the John Martin I know. One thing that CAN'T be said about him is that he doesn't practice what he preaches in this pamphlet or on everything he says about the Sermon on the Mount and the NT KOG.

[Bootstrap]

It seems clear to me that you assumed I hadn't read the entire pamphlet, going as far as telling me "When you have read the pamphlet...". These kinds of assumptions and habits get quite tiring and make having productive conversations quite difficult.

At the end of page 6, you said you had not read the pamphlet that this thread is about. That was Wednesday afternoon. I assumed you were telling the truth, and asked people to read the pamphlet before participating in this thread. If you want people to know you have now read the pamphlet, you could simply say so.

This thread is about the pamphlet, not about the assumptions you make about the assumptions I might be making. I am telling you what I think quite directly, there's not a lot of need to guess.

I think keeping the focus on the pamphlet and comparing it directly to Scripture is the way to have a productive conversation.

[Bootstrap]

I found this more problematic:

The term "Pharisee" means "one who is separated." The Pharisees considered countercultural obedience to the Torah to be the heart of a godly life. Unlike the zealots, they rejected violent revolution and believed that God would overthrow their enemies without them resorting to worldly force.

As we noted, Jesus clearly supported this concept of cultural separation. In His day, such cultural separation was practiced by a very small minority, even as it is today. The Pharisees never numbered more than several thousand in Israel. In contrast to the Pharisees, the Sadducees acculturated with the surrounding Greek society, and by doing so they lost the essential truths of Judaism. This ruling class of Jesus' day, which included many of the priests, had rationalized their beliefs to make their religion fit the surrounding secular culture.

By preserving the true tenets of Judaism, the cultural norms of the Pharisees actually nurtured a faithful train of redemptionists looking for the Messiah, including Zacharias, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Joseph, Mary, Simeon, Anna, and the disciples. It is unfortunate that the hypocrisy of the Pharisees’ leaders has been used to daub all the Pharisees with the same brush and thereby caricature anybody who is serious about wholesome cultural norms.

Here, Martin seems to be holding up the Pharisees as an example of what true Christians should do. The Pharisees were the forefathers of modern Orthodox Judaism, which had plenty of hedges around the law, long lists of religious observances to follow, based on sometimes very strange interpretations of Scripture. So "do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk" really means keeping all meat and milk separate so that digestive juices will not cook them together, and that evolves into cultural practices of keeping plates separate depending on what is served with them, etc. The problem with this is that it leaves the plain meaning of Scripture in the dust, these clear rules and practices have taken over, leaving the original meaning in the dust. So I do not see Pharisees as a group we should copy.

I do not think that Jesus spoke positively of "the cultural norms of the Pharisees", and his defiance of these norms set him at odds with the Pharisees, who wanted to kill him. Healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners and tax collectors and Samaritans, letting his disciples eat without following the ceremonial washing rules ... these are all examples of Jesus violating these cultural norms.

I do not believe it was Jesus' defiance of these norms that set Him at odds with the Pharisees. All of the examples you give here, Jesus used to expose their hypocrisy and to show them what Paul describes as the "righteousness of the law" being at work. So it was their hypocrisy that set Jesus at odds with the hypocritical Pharisees, not His defiance of cultural norms. John Martin makes this clear. Jesus himself says that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

That's Martin's argument. But I think Jesus does, in fact, disobey these cultural norms and criticize them in passages like this:

When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

Did Jesus submit to the tangible cultural norm of washing hands before the meal? Did he encourage others to faithfully follow this practice?

This is especially clear in Mark 7:

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

Again, was Jesus telling them to follow these cultural norms or not? I don't think he was.

[Bootstrap]

Do you still hold to the following assertion?

I am, however, disagreeing with John Martin's pamphlet, which implies that the New Testament is largely about creating an externally visible culture based on outside-the-cup cultural markers.

I responded to that here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7188&start=70

I think I should modify my statement somewhat. Here is the conclusion of the booklet:

Will we learn from the obvious examples of the Quakers, the Church of the Brethren, and the Methodists? Or will we depend on vague notions of Gospel simplicity and modesty and refuse to embrace cultural norms that make a tangible appeal of these virtues to the heart and mind? Will our descendants live with the blessings of a cultural integrity that solidifies common Gospel beliefs and values with common practices? Or will they die with the consequences of a shattered cultural integrity that finally loses the Gospel principles once complemented and supported by distinctive cultural norms? As for me and my house, we will choose the precious heritage of Anabaptist cultural integrity.

He is clearly saying we need something more than just following the teaching of the New Testament, that we need to solidify the Gospel with cultural practices and cultural norms. He feels comfortable starting a sentence with the first part of a Bible verse - "As for me and my house we will choose the precious heritage of Anabaptist cultural integrity".

But he does not say that the New Testament is largely about these things. He does seem to be saying that Gospel beliefs and values are vague and will die out without these cultural norms, that the cultural norms are needed to make them real and tangible. I don't think Jesus or Paul or John or Peter taught that.

I don't know of any conservative Anabaptist who has had more to say about the importance of the Sermon on the Mount and the NT Kingdom of God for followers of Jesus than John Martin. That's not to say that I agree with everything he says, but it is to say that to make a negative assertion like this is to not understand the John Martin I know. One thing that CAN'T be said about him is that he doesn't practice what he preaches in this pamphlet or on everything he says about the Sermon on the Mount and the NT KOG.

I do not know John Martin, and I am saying nothing at all about the way he lives his life or the rest of his beliefs. I did not find the pamphlet compelling, though.