tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719139866984861669.post4351490447913174589..comments2023-08-15T08:50:00.391-07:00Comments on Adventist Perspective: Reviewing Adventist TodayUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719139866984861669.post-53507759171457174042010-01-31T23:00:43.548-08:002010-01-31T23:00:43.548-08:00J. David,
If you look at the maroon strip at the t...J. David,<br />If you look at the maroon strip at the top of page 16, you will fine the word “FEATURE”.<br /><br />Now to your substantive response. The article uses the history of Quakerism as an example of what happens to Christian denominations. “In their early years (about 1650 to 1690), Quakers were marked by a fiery evangelism and an obviously and radically different style of life from that of their neighbors.” As King goes on to report, “Quakers could by their appearance and way of life be instantly and infallibly identified—even from afar.” In other words, the early community adhered to a strict code of dress and behavior.<br /><br />Perhaps we read the same article with different definitions of “legalism” in mind. To me legalism means, “adhering to law or prescription”. When the term, “legalistic”, is applied to a religious group, it is not a pejorative term, unless it is used in the context of damning people with opposing beliefs. King simply observes that initially, members of religious groups define themselves legalistically, i.e. very specifically with regard to their beliefs and actions. Over time, these groups inevitably become a collection of permissive “atomistic individuals, each of whom goes his or her own way without taking any responsibility for one’s fellows or accepting any concern from them”. King defines this condition as “permissive” and the religion “arthritic”.Andy Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16589573364311905584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719139866984861669.post-67090042933407120732010-01-27T20:56:01.270-08:002010-01-27T20:56:01.270-08:00Andy,I always enjoy your writing whether I agree o...Andy,I always enjoy your writing whether I agree or not. I am perplexed by your review of Permissiveness or Legalism. You wrote: 'My biggest disappointment is the feature article, LEGALISM OR PERMISSIVENESS: AN INESCAPABLE DILEMMA? reprinted with the permission of The Christian Century, April 16, 1980."<br /><br />First of all it was not the feature article. There were two feature articles listed on the contents page: the articles on mavericks and the remnant.<br /><br />Second, you wrote,"L. A. King makes the following quasi sociological argument: Churches inevitably decline from legalistic cohesive beginnings to a collection of permissive “atomistic individuals, each of whom goes his or her own way without taking any responsibility for one’s fellows or accepting any concern from them”.<br /><br />I don't know what you read but that is the opposite of what King wrote. King wrote that religious groups begin with an infective fervor that attracts people but when people join for other reasons than the original reasons the movement begins to lose its fervor. As a result it adherents try to preserve the fervor by developing rules to keep the order. When that does not work a group splits off to be more loving which ends up being more permissive.<br /><br />You then wrote:<br />"King believes that when this “atomistic” condition becomes unsatisfactory to “a person or small group”, there will be a spontaneous “new attempt to get back to primitive Christianity”. It will “reproduce the vividness or the original [legalistic] experiences”."<br /><br />Then you added "legalistic" which is your interpretation of what the original movement was all about. King never said they began in a legalistic way. They only became legalistic when the original fervor began to decline.<br /><br />The title is the clue: Legalism or Permissiveness: An Inescapable Dilemma? It did not start out with either of those two options. Those simply became the choices when the group could not continue the same spirit with which they began.<br /><br />Did we read the same article?<br /><br />J. David NewmanJ David Newmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185355872188782077noreply@blogger.com