Playing the Pharisee Card

[ALAYMAN]

How apropos for this site...

I have been called a Pharisee more times than I can remember. It goes with the territory. I host a conservative Christian radio talk show. I publicly defend the teachings and practices of the historic Church. I also publicly point out false teaching and practices in the Church today. For these reasons alone, some believe that I deserve to be called a Pharisee.

But I

 

[Timothy]

How apropos for this site...

I have been called a Pharisee more times than I can remember. It goes with the territory. I host a conservative Christian radio talk show. I publicly defend the teachings and practices of the historic Church. I also publicly point out false teaching and practices in the Church today. For these reasons alone, some believe that I deserve to be called a Pharisee.

But I

 

[Castor Muscular]

So if a person stands against forms of worldliness that are flouted on the FFF, you will have the Pharisee Card played.  For instance...

First, don't forget the "antinomian card", played against many of us frequently. 

However, I don't see how volunteering to be a designated driver is "flouting worldliness".  Getting drunk with your friends and claiming it's your freedom in Christ to do so is flouting worldliness (and probably antinomian).  Volunteering to do something to save the lives of your friends and innocent people is not. 

 

[samspade]

As I look at Jesus' condemnation of the pharisees, it seems very consistent. His condemnation was based on their lack of love for God and for others. They eschewed worldliness and unclean things as a matter of pride, not love for God. They criticized His teachings and healing because they had no love for the people taught or healed. They lived a self-focused worldview instead of an other-focused one. There are many times I'm guilty of the same thing.

As I look at the church today, I see many pharisees. But I see them in all kinds of churches from the IFBx'er to the non-denominational contemporary. It's not so much about actions as it is about motivations. For instance, in the designated driver argument, is the person motivated to show the love of Christ to their friends by saving their lives? I don't know, hence I haven't weighed in on the argument. Alayman may feel that it is not loving to enable poor choices. There are valid cases to be made on both sides.

And that's the problem with trying to make a rigid rule. The pharisees couldn't bend their rules when love required it. If we can't, then we deserve the label.

 

[Castor Muscular]

For instance, in the designated driver argument, is the person motivated to show the love of Christ to their friends by saving their lives?

Here is the text from the original post:

She had volunteered to be the designtated (sic) driver for her friends who were going out to get smashed at a local bar.  They weren't Christians, but were her friends, and she thought it was the responsible Christ-like thing to do in order to make sure they got home in one piece, and didn't kill anybody else either.  Her church got wind of her "runnin' the bars" and told her that she needed to stop such activities.

I'll let the text speak for itself, and I'm assuming the situation is accurately described.  If so, it seems like an open/shut case to me. 

 

[christundivided]

How apropos for this site...

Stand against gambling and the lottery....you will have the Pharisee Card played.

Call libertine behaviors such as cigarette smoking what it is, and you guessed it...you will have the Pharisee Card played.

Point out how a fellow Christian is abusing the context of Scripture, you know what is coming...you will have the Pharisee Card played.

Challenge the seeker sensitive pragmatism that accompanies the entertainment driven mentality so prevalent amongst the quasi-emergents, and yep...you will have the Pharisee Card played.

Confront folk who urge lifestyle evangelism absent verbal proclamation of the gospel, you know what you are...you will have the Pharisee Card played.

Moral to the story, don't ever dare to question the practices of another person when they claim that they are doing it in the liberty they now have found in Christ, for after all...



they're FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Nothing wrong with the a lottery ticket. Just like a Pharisee... you provided no Scripture to backup your claim. Just a appeal to the "old paths". What a sham. I'm sure you take pride in your "orthodox stance".

2. Nothing wrong with smoking. Again no Scripture. Didn't the Pharisee's do the same. Remember when Jesus said "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men?". Hint... its in Matthew and Mark somewhere...

3. Just a like a good Pharisee... I'm sure you always have just the right angle on "context". Remember that little word "Corban"?

4. Remember how as child you sung that song... "let your little light shine"? Not everyone can preach and most shouldn't. They don't have the call and all they do is mess things up. Sorta like you're doing right now. Leave it to someone more qualified..... and stop pretending you are qualified. 

Maybe you know where this very is found?

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

5. There are some that use their liberty as a "cloke" of malice. But we know a good Pharisee would never use "self imposed" slavery as a "cloke of malice".

 

[Ransom]

Take your personal preferences and claim they are laws that apply to everyone . . . you will have the Pharisee card played. And rightly so.

 

[rsc2a]

From the original link:

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for softening the demands of the Law. Because they taught that human works contributed to salvation, the Pharisees had to make the Law more

 

[rsc2a]

From the link: A compromised Law meant a compromised Gospel. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they abandoned God

 

[ALAYMAN]

As I look at Jesus' condemnation of the pharisees, it seems very consistent. His condemnation was based on their lack of love for God and for others. They eschewed worldliness and unclean things as a matter of pride, not love for God. They criticized His teachings and healing because they had no love for the people taught or healed. They lived a self-focused worldview instead of an other-focused one. There are many times I'm guilty of the same thing.

As I look at the church today, I see many pharisees. But I see them in all kinds of churches from the IFBx'er to the non-denominational contemporary. It's not so much about actions as it is about motivations. For instance, in the designated driver argument, is the person motivated to show the love of Christ to their friends by saving their lives? I don't know, hence I haven't weighed in on the argument. Alayman may feel that it is not loving to enable poor choices. There are valid cases to be made on both sides.

And that's the problem with trying to make a rigid rule. The pharisees couldn't bend their rules when love required it. If we can't, then we deserve the label.

I appreciate your balance, as always.  If we are to be objective about what I've said, I've NEVER made this an issue of absolute worldliness (though I think that that is one possible motive in some cases), and I've never said that a person who served as a DD was sinning, but rather that they very well may be acting in an unwise fashion by ignoring the dangers (physical and spiritual) of placing themselves in the bar scene.

Take your personal preferences and claim they are laws that apply to everyone . . . you will have the Pharisee card played. And rightly so.

I don't disagree, and have not said anything to the contrary, but rather suggested that regular bar attendance to be a DD for your buddies to get sloshed is unwise at best, and enablement at worst.

From the link: A compromised Law meant a compromised Gospel. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they abandoned God

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

From the link: A compromised Law meant a compromised Gospel. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they abandoned God

 

[Izdaari]

FWIW, I think samspade totally nailed it.  ;D

 

[ALAYMAN]

FWIW, I think samspade totally nailed it.  ;D

Yes, I think he gave a good answer as well.

Having said that, the point of the article is spot on regarding how many on this site resort quickly to applying the pharisee label to anybody more conservative than themselves.  It's not exclusive to this site either, as the link to "Pirate Christian Radio" demonstrates.  It's like shouting "racist" when somebody proposes welfare reform.  It's usually a bully tactic intended to stifle free discussion of the ideas, and is simply a not so subtle form of ad hominem.

 

[Castor Muscular]

It's like shouting "racist" when somebody proposes welfare reform. 

I'll agree that happens, but that hasn't been the case in these recent discussions.  It is nothing like calling someone "racist" about welfare reform without any evidence of racism.  It is much more like calling someone a "racist" if they said they oppose welfare reform because they don't want to give money to black people.  It is not playing a race card if they actually made a racist statement.  Neither is it playing a Pharisee card if they actually said something Pharisaical.

 

[ALAYMAN]

It's like shouting "racist" when somebody proposes welfare reform. 

I'll agree that happens, but that hasn't been the case in these recent discussions.  It is nothing like calling someone "racist" about welfare reform without any evidence of racism.  It is much more like calling someone a "racist" if they said they oppose welfare reform because they don't want to give money to black people.  It is not playing a race card if they actually made a racist statement.  Neither is it playing a Pharisee card if they actually said something Pharisaical.

But by suggesting that it is not wise to perpetually enable your alcoholic friends to continue in their bebauchery is not necessarily motivated by a spirit of pharisaism (self-righteousness).  I gave you a Biblical rationale for staying away from such situations (Prov 23:20) and could cite more, but you are already to castigate me as a pharisee.  Your mind is made up, because that is how you view me.  It is a form of ad hominem, plain and simple, and you don't want to really hash out the argument.

 

[Castor Muscular]

But by suggesting that it is not wise to perpetually enable your alcoholic friends to continue in their bebauchery is not necessarily motivated by a spirit of pharisaism (self-righteousness).  I gave you a Biblical rationale for staying away from such situations (Prov 23:20) and could cite more, but you are already to castigate me as a pharisee.  Your mind is made up, because that is how you view me.  It is a form of ad hominem, plain and simple, and you don't want to really hash out the argument.

You are taking the verse out of context and changed its meaning.

Proverbs 23:20-21

20 Do not join those who drink too much wine
    or gorge themselves on meat,
21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor,
    and drowsiness clothes them in rags.

It's not saying to avoid being around drunkards.  It's saying do not join them and be a drunkard or glutton yourself, and warns you about what happens if you do. 

You established the reason for her attendance in your original post.  It wasn't about going to bars to enjoy the bar scene or the company of drunkards.  It was about doing what she felt was the Christ-like thing to do, and prevent her friends from hurting themselves or others.  You worry about her "testimony" but by caring for the lives of her friends and strangers, she was giving a superb testimony.  Her church falsely accused her of bar-running, and she was rightfully angry about that. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

You are taking the verse out of context and changed its meaning.

Proverbs 23:20-21

20 Do not join those who drink too much wine
    or gorge themselves on meat,
21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor,
    and drowsiness clothes them in rags.

It's not saying to avoid being around drunkards.  It's saying do not join them and be a drunkard or glutton yourself, and warns you about what happens if you do. 

Nope, not taking it out of context at all.  If the verse wanted to say "don't get drunk" it could have easily and straightforwardly said it, but here, as in many other places in wisdom literature, it warns of keeping company with people who are living ungodly lives.

Here's just the few commentators I looked up:

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Be not among winebibbers - There is much of this chapter spent in giving directions concerning eating, drinking, and entertainments in general.

1. he pupil is directed relative to the manner in which he is to conduct himself in his visits to the tables of the rich and great.

2. Relative to the covetous and his intercourse with them. And

3. To public entertainnlents, where there were generally riot and debauch.

The reasons, says Calmet, which induced the wise man to give these directions were,

1. The useless expense.

2. The loss of time.

3. The danger from bad company. And

4. The danger of contracting irregular habits, and of being induced to lead a voluptuous and effeminate life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Be not amongst winebibbers,.... Who drink to excess, otherwise wine may be drank, provided moderation is used; but it is not good to be in company with, excessive drinkers of it, lost a habit of excessive drinking should be acquired;

among riotous eaters of flesh; flesh may be lawfully eaten, but not in a riotous manner, so as to indulge to gluttony and surfeiting; nor should such persons be kept company with that do so, lest their ways should be learned and imitated.

You established the reason for her attendance in your original post.  It wasn't about going to bars to enjoy the bar scene or the company of drunkards.  It was about doing what she felt was the Christ-like thing to do, and prevent her friends from hurting themselves or others.  You worry about her "testimony" but by caring for the lives of her friends and strangers, she was giving a superb testimony.  Her church falsely accused her of bar-running, and she was rightfully angry about that.

I have no qualms about the notion that the church may have rushed to judgment and possibly bungled the handling of it, but the fact remains that her testimony could be hurt by appearing in such places due to the reputation of the crowd that congregates there. 

 

[Castor Muscular]

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Be not amongst winebibbers,.... Who drink to excess, otherwise wine may be drank, provided moderation is used; but it is not good to be in company with, excessive drinkers of it, lost a habit of excessive drinking should be acquired;

among riotous eaters of flesh; flesh may be lawfully eaten, but not in a riotous manner, so as to indulge to gluttony and surfeiting; nor should such persons be kept company with that do so, lest their ways should be learned and imitated.

That's saying the same as what I said.  Do not join with them and risk becoming a drunkard or glutton yourself, or else this will happen to you.  But your OP did not say she was there to hang out with drunkards.  It says she was there to drive them home.  There's a big difference, and Prov 23:20 does not apply. 

I have no qualms about the notion that the church may have rushed to judgment and possibly bungled the handling of it, but the fact remains that her testimony could be hurt by appearing in such places due to the reputation of the crowd that congregates there.

And yet Jesus defended an adulteress, was friends with a prostitute, drank wine with tax collectors, and so on, always unconcerned about how it would affect his testimony.  And that's what makes your attitude un-Christlike and Pharisaical.  You are more concerned about the outward appearance than the truth.  The truth is (according to your story) is that she was attempting to save lives.  If people want to misinterpret that, that's their problem, not hers. 

 

[christundivided]

I have no qualms about the notion that the church may have rushed to judgment and possibly bungled the handling of it, but the fact remains that her testimony could be hurt by appearing in such places due to the reputation of the crowd that congregates there.

Jesus has that problem too.....

Luk 7:34  The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Pro 23:20  Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:

Also, So much for Christ attending the marriage of Canaan. I mean it still looks bad on Him to this day....

 

[ALAYMAN]

That's saying the same as what I said.  Do not join with them and risk becoming a drunkard or glutton yourself, or else this will happen to you.

Nope, it's plain as day what was said.  You snipped out some good stuff, probably because it doesn't say what you would like for it to say.  Here it is again...

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
... among riotous eaters of flesh; flesh may be lawfully eaten, but not in a riotous manner, so as to indulge to gluttony and surfeiting; nor should such persons be kept company with that do so, lest their ways should be learned and imitated.

Notice the "lest their ways should be learned and imitated".  That fits in line with the spiritual danger of keeping bad company, and having them influence you (which I stated in the thread).  Additionally, Clark said...

1. The useless expense.

2. The loss of time.

3. The danger from bad company. And

4. The danger of contracting irregular habits, and of being induced to lead a voluptuous and effeminate life.

Notice that the reason for caution to not indulge in such a lifestyle/environment is that it may lead to bad habits.  Evil communications corrupt good manners.  You may argue with the interpretation if you wish, but many good men understand such wisdom literature prohibitions in such a manner.  Of course you can insist they are all pharisees, and if so, I'll keep in good company with Gill, Clark, et al, and sleep well before my conscience and Scripture.

And yet Jesus defended an adulteress, was friends with a prostitute, drank wine with tax collectors, and so on, always unconcerned about how it would affect his testimony.  And that's what makes your attitude un-Christlike and Pharisaical.  You are more concerned about the outward appearance than the truth.  The truth is (according to your story) is that she was attempting to save lives.  If people want to misinterpret that, that's their problem, not hers.

Christ wasn't hanging out with those people in order to partake of their lifestyle and customs, but rather conform and change them, and he often told them to "go and sin no more".  I don't see the enabler mentality as one of confrontation.  You would think that if lifestyle evangelism had as much effect in garnering credibility with such folk that there would be an audiece ripe for the picking to hear of such spiritual admonishment.