Whether you are celebrating Halloween or Reformation Day, I hope your day is a happy one. I don’t wish anyone ill will, even if you’re dressed like a witch with a sugar craving, or sneaking around nailing lists to church doors. Just have fun and be safe, OK?
Bus Sitting
At this moment I am sitting on a school bus in Riceville, Tennessee. After my morning route I drove 60 kids from Battle Elementary to a farm. So, while the little munchkins are out finding pumpkins and petting goats, I’m trying not to freeze.
My only problem is that I forgot to bring a hat, a jacket, or any kind of food or drink. All I have is my iPhone, so that’s why I’m blogging. It will take my mind off my hunger.
Caustic Comment
A while back I wrote a post entitled “Was John R. Rice a Heretic?” In that piece I dealt with the issue of KJV-onlyism and the fact that Dr. Rice, founder of Sword of the Lord, was not a KJV-only subscriber. What came after were a slew of hateful comments from KJV-onlyists (preservationists).
Therefore, instead of complaining about being cold and hungry in a bus parked in a corn field, I wanted to share with you the latest and greatest comment I’ve received. I hope you will be encouraged and uplifted as you read the following words most assuredly written in love…
My beloved, nothing is ever going to change the truth that God has preserved his word in the English language only in the old king james 1611. Frankly speaking,If you don’t see the truth it is just because the god of this world has blinded you.
Your modern versions translate the word virgin to young woman,perverting the virgin birth of our saviour. Are you not ashamed of that,you hired heretic from the pit of hell?
You can say I’m harsh but the fires of hell will be more harsh on you because these modernists who pervert God’s word have hired a candidate of hell like you to speak good of them.
Who do you even think you are to copyright God’s word? CAN’T YOU SEE WHY GOD WILL THROW YOU INTO HELL AND LEAVE YOU THERE FOREVER?
Besides never knowing I owned a “copyright” on any version of the Bible, I am surprised to find out that I was hired by modernists to pervert the very doctrines I thought I believed. If the dark forces of liberalism paid this “candidate of hell” anything, it wasn’t negotiable at the bank. I’ve been cheated!
I guess that’s why I’m sitting, shivering, and starving on this bus as I try to earn a few extra dollars. Evidently, being an unknowingly hired heretic from the pit of hell doesn’t pay very well.
“What to wear to church?” has consistently been the number one search entry leading people to The Recovering Legalist. What does that tell you?
If you’ve never read my thoughts on this before, this is the post all the search engines bring up. It was written back in 2010.
Clothing
Recently, I was asked to be the guest speaker at a larger, more contemporary church. Out of respect for each other, the pastor of that church and I jokingly discussed what I should wear. You see, he never wears a suit, while I almost always do. His congregation has become more “contemporary,” while my congregation remains more “traditional.” So, to make me comfortable, the pastor told me whatever I wanted to wear was fine. Therefore, I will compromise – I will probably wear a sport coat, khakis, and flip flops…not really.
The way I dress to go to church may not be the way you dress. My style may not suit your tastes, nor yours mine. But the fact of the matter is that unless you’re totally too liberal, or don’t go at all, you wear some kind of clothing to church, correct? Well, have you ever wondered if what you wear to church is appropriate?
Below are some of my thoughts on the subject.
It’s Not About You
If you are planning to attend a worship service where God is supposed to be the center of attention, don’t dress like a clown! Don’t dress like you are going to an L.A. premier of Lady Gaga’s new movie, It’s All About Me.
Some cultures believe people should come to church in clothing that could damage someone’s retina. Gettin’ “fancied up” is what’s expected. But it’s this type of clothing, in most cases, that draws attention to the congregant, not Christ. My advice is to stay away from neon suits and flashing bow ties. Church clothing should be a covering, not a calling card.
Show Some Respect
Some people think it is totally appropriate to wear enough jewelry and feathers to keep pawn shops in business and all geese naked. Others think it is completely acceptable to look like a drunk that slept in an alley all night (no offense to the drunk). Neither shows a sense of respect. The first steals God’s glory, while the second implies God’s house is no different than anywhere else.
Here’s a couple suggestions. Try going to a White House dinner looking like a hobo or a hippie from the 60’s. Receive an invitation to tea from Queen Elizabeth and show up looking like you just got out of bed and never took a shower. Unless you’re a bonafide rock star, security personnel may escort you to a private room to “get acquainted.” So then, if dignitaries of earthly kingdoms demand respect, why shouldn’t we offer it to our Heavenly King? Is God not greater than Obama? (clear throat)
Beware of Legalistic Standards
However, whatever you wear, don’t be too quick to judge another’s spiritual condition by what they wear. Only God knows the heart.
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. – Rom 14:4 KJV
Sadly, I have been around many believers who consider one style of clothing a sign of spiritual maturity, while another style a sign of spiritual waywardness. And you know what’s funny? It doesn’t matter which side of the spiritual tracks, there’s always somebody looking at another thinking, “They’re not right with God.”
Legalism cuts both ways, dear friend. For example, I have been to churches that ridiculed any woman who wears pants, or a man who never tucks in his shirt. On the other hand, I have been in congregations that blatantly condemned all dress and tie-wearers as right-wing, self-righteous, fundamentalist, nut jobs. In both cases someone judged another’s spirituality based on outward appearances, alone. In both cases one group’s set of standards were being used as a guide to what is spiritual behavior, and what is not. That’s LEGALISM!
Believe it or not, the most modern, non-denominational, praise-and-worship-style congregation can be just as legalistic as the narrow-minded traditionalist. I may not prefer to preach in blue jeans on Sunday morning, but I’m not going to condemn someone who does. Likewise, when I don’t wear a suit and tie on Sunday night, I am not going to condemn someone who dresses like he’s going to a funeral.
Context, Context, Context
Ultimately, how you dress should be determined by the context of your community. Small, rural congregations might not feel comfortable dressing for church in the same way a metropolitan First Baptist may. Similarly, churches in depressed economies may adopt different dress codes than upwardly mobile societies. The key is to be respectful, honorable, and considerate of the holy moment at hand. Whatever fits that bill is good enough.
Just keep this principle in mind: Grace accepts, Maturity develops, and Love constrains.
Don’t make appearances the only thing about which you’re concerned. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is far too important a message to be drowned in petty arguments about whether it is appropriate to dress up for church, or go dress-casual. Many people in the world have to worship Christ underground – literally. Dress codes are the least of their worries. Additionally, the drug addict who needs hope and help may not have any clothes left that he hasn’t already sold to get high. The single mother of five that walks into your church may have barely enough energy to survive, much less do her hair.
Do all things to the glory of the Lord, but keep things in perspective, OK?
My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism [or be legalistic]. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? – Jam 2:1-5 NIV
The following piece is meant to be informative, not critical, even though I may criticize a little, and I apologize in advance for the length. All in all, I hope that it will help lead people away from unhealthy, legalistic, and abusive churches by helping them recognize “red flags.”
Not all pastors are abusive megalomaniacs. The ones that are should be called out and held accountable, for their poor witness harms not only the Church, but the world to which we are called to be witnesses.
Hissy Fit
Several months ago a video was posted on YouTube. That video shows Dr. Jim Standridge, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Skiatook, Oklahoma, publicly chastising members of his congregation.
Since its release, the video has gone viral with over 700,000 views, so far. I was made aware of this video a couple of months ago when friend on Facebook posted it to her wall and created a stir. It was originally posted on a website called Stuff Fundies Like.
Personally, I think it is a shame that something like this has been put out for all to see, for it damages the reputation of all who sincerely follow Christ. I even have problems with the website that originally made this widely available. But since it is out there and not going away, I feel it should be addressed.
Context
It is important to look at things in their proper contexts before we come to conclusions. That is why I wanted to find the video of Dr. Standridge’s entire sermon. I found it on Immanuel Baptist Church’s website and watched the entire thing, making plenty of notes.
Those commenting in defense of this video have said things like: “You shouldn’t judge a man based on this one video…we don’t know what led up to him talking this way.” In an interview with The Christian Post, even Dr. Standridge said, “…you can’t judge a man by one message.”
But is that entirely so? During the time it took to watch the hour-long sermon I noticed several “red flags” that told me this was probably not an isolated incident.
Full Sermon (see if you can spot the red flags)
NOTE: The video was taken down, so I’m glad I reviewed it when I did!
The term “red flag” is used to describe a warning sign. The following are some of the red flags I noticed while watching the full sermon preached by Dr. Standridge on May 19, 2013.
1) The need to express self-importance, along with possessiveness.
In less than two minutes into the sermon (1:13), Dr. Standridge first addresses the boy that was to fall asleep. He says: “Son, look at me – I’m the man, baby.” Later (39:23), he addresses the boy again and says: “I’m somebody…now you might do your English teacher thataway [sic], but I’m not teaching English…”
To the same boy he says, “I’m not some little hireling” (20:55). Then, at the 48:20 mark: “I don’t care…I do care, but I don’t care…It’s like that young boy right there, he don’t know who I am.”
In the infamous part where Dr. Standridge talks to Mr. Cox, the man in the video room, he says: “…you don’t care about what I want to do right…if you loved me, and you submitted to me, you’d know what my heart is and my message is…(43:00). Then, at the 47:25 mark he says: “You may be the best sound man…but that’s my sound room before it’s yours!”
Towards the end Dr. Standridge confronts a girl named Wendy (1:01:39) and plays the guilt card: “You count my life as something, well, very secondary, if anything.”
2) Belittling others.
In one hour Dr. Standridge manages to put down skateboards, comparing them to witch’s brooms (1:13; 4:39), texting (54:35-55:20), secular college education (1:01:39), the right of a mother to be upset (48:11), a woman’s needs (3:50), and a wife’s spirituality and intelligence (6:50-7:25).
3) Threats
In several places Dr. Standridge threatens to leave the church if the congregation doesn’t want to hear what he has to say. “Now if you don’t want me…”(40:50).
4) Publicly announcing church members’ faults.
What gets Dr. Standridge into so much trouble is where he calls out Mr. Cox in the sound/video room and the young couple about to get married (as seen in the YouTube clip). But where some want to say that was just an isolated incident, the reality is that he did this from the beginning to the end of the sermon!
The fact that he would say in front of the church that a young man was “one of the sorriest church members” and “not worth 15 cents” (39:50) was completely inexcusable. And, telling Angela, a young wife, that she should quit questioning her husband and start submitting to him (6:50-7:25) was completely out of line.
5) Following abuse with “You know I love you.“
It was really hard to keep track of how many times Dr. Standridge followed a stinging comment or snide remark with something like, “You know I love you, don’t you?” He said this to Mr. Cox and put him on the spot with a hug (39:50ff) right after telling him he wasn’t worth 15 cents! He even asked the poor skater boy: “Have I convinced you I love you? You better nod your head yes.” (39:23ff)
Even more, his love comments were commonly used as a justification to the congregation for his actions: “I love that boy right there” (1:13); “Now, let me tell everybody here how much I love these kids” (referring to Mr. Underwood and his bride to be). This is what abusive husbands do, not pastors.
Scripture
1 Timothy 5:20 says: “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” The only problem with using that verse to justify what Dr. Standridge did/does is that this verse was meant for elders…Pastors (vs. 18-19)! I cannot see any reason why it had to come to a point where the pastor of a church called out so many people for their supposed sins and inconsistencies.
Long before any of the people chastised by Dr. Standridge should have been publicly reprimanded, Jesus set the pattern for how to deal with church issues…privately, with one or two, then before the church.
“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. “But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ “And if he refuses to hear them, tell [it] to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-17 NKJV)
So much pain and embarrassment, both for the individuals involved and the church in general, could have been spared had Dr. Standridge heeded the wisdom of Solomon: “He who covers a transgression seeks love, But he who repeats a matter separates friends.” (Proverbs 17:9 NKJV)
Final Thoughts
As I see it, Dr. Standridge should have been asked to resign after this sermon, but as with any abused wife, the congregation defends what he said. When I spoke of it to my congregation, they agreed that if I had done anything similar I would be looking for a job.
Not all pastors are like Dr. Standridge, even on a bad day; those who are should be called to the carpet (1 Timothy 5:20). Sure, we make mistakes and say things we regret, but most of us aren’t arrogant and abusive. We love our flocks to the point of laying down our own lives (John 10:11). The last thing we want to do is embarrass and shame people; we want to see them restored, edified, and molded into the image of Christ (Romans 8:29).
Once again we are remembering what happened on 9/11. Terrorist murdered thousands of innocent people in an attempt to make us cower. They wanted to make us fear – and, for the most part, it worked.
No other religion holds as many people in fear as does Islam. We can insult Christians by dipping crucifixes in urine and by court marshaling soldiers for their belief in traditional marriage, but God help us if we draw a cartoon of Mohammed. No one dares offend a Muslim for fear of his house being burned or his throat cut.
Because our nation and our people have refused to admit the reasons for our fears, we will never be able to address them. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are in a religious war – we have been since before Sept. 11 – and we are losing. The enemy has a unifying cause, but we are divided multiple times over – we even boast in our “diversity.”
Comparing the Two
But since this blog deals with legalism (from time to time), I thought today would be a perfect day to point out a painful similarity between terrorism and legalism: fear.
Fear is what keeps the faithful faithful. Those in legalistic environments dare not challenge the status quo for fear of being ostracized, stigmatized, or being separated from fellowship. Even if someone felt it perfectly acceptable to go to a movie, one dare not be seen going to the theater. The woman that wears pants at home wouldn’t dare wear them outside – someone in the church might call them “liberal.”
(The following was added after the original post in response to a tweet) Pants? Movies? Thousands die after the towers fall and all I have to compare it with are pants and movies? To be honest, I wrote the above paragraph while choking back anger and carefully trying to choose my words. I lived for 30 years in fear of others. I saw my father degraded, belittled, and blackballed. I nearly took my own life when I finally felt I could no longer live up to the legalistic expectations of not only others, but myself. Pants and movies were only the tip of the iceberg.
Fear…however it is used to control the actions of others…whether imposed by others or by one’s self…that’s my point.
Legalism is oppressive, freedom-stealing violence against grace.
There is a suggestion floating around the internet on places like Facebook, Twitter, etc. The suggestion is to get yourself a big can of wasp & hornet spray (a pesticide) for protection – not from bug, but from criminals.
You see, it is getting more and more difficult for honest, law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms. On the other hand, criminals are becoming anything but more friendly. Therefore, some are suggesting that using a can of wasp spray is a good alternative to a gun. Here’s an example from a post on Facebook…
[Wasp spray] can shoot up to twenty feet away and is a lot more accurate [than pepper spray], while with the pepper spray, they have to get too close to you and could overpower you. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. [A church secretary] keeps a can on her desk in the office and it doesn’t attract attention from people like a can of pepper spray would. She also keeps one nearby at home for home protection.
A Legal Problem
Having an inexpensive form of self-defense sounds all fine and dandy, especially if you are the type who either cannot or won’t own a firearm. The only problem with using a can of bug spray is that it would be illegal. Yes, illegal.
Now, you may be asking yourself, “Why would I worry about using a can of bug spray on an attacker trying to harm me or take my life?” In a normal universe, it would seem perfectly acceptable to use anything at your disposal to defend your life, correct? Well, we don’t live in a world ruled by common sense, but by lawyers.
If you were casually walking through your house one day, and a burglar broke in and chased you through the garage, and you picked up the first thing handy, a can of bug spray, and shot him in the face, you might be OK. On the other hand, if you have a can sitting on your desk, or beside your bed, or in your purse, then you could get in real trouble.
Take a look at the highlighted portion of the picture. There you will read the following: “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” As any trained pest control technician would tell you, “the label is the law.”
So, if you are ever forced to use your bug spray on an attacker, bear this in mind: a good defense attorney will have your skin for the premeditated illegal use of a potentially deadly substance. If your attacker is harmed in any way, don’t think for a moment that a sleazeball lawyer won’t take advantage of you “violating Federal law.” Your attacker may even get off without jail time, all because you hurt his feelings with anything but a double-barrel shotgun.
Law and Grace
When the law is all there is, legalists will seize any opportunity. There will always be someone willing to twist the law to his (or his client’s) own advantage.
Paul told Timothy, “we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully” (1 Timothy 1:8). Unfortunately, in this day and age, there are those who don’t always use the law for good, but for gain. Therefore, be careful.
It has been in the news a lot, recently. It is the idea that all guns (handguns, rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, plastic toys, etc.) are bad, bad, bad. Some western countries have all but eliminated them from public possession, while others are arguing over what laws to enact next.
The Lexington Minute Man
Personally, coming from a man who lives in the southern United States and would have fought for the Confederacy if alive in the 19th century, I believe “gun control” is being able to hit one’s target. The last thing I will vote for is the removal of weapons from the common citizen. In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment was written by men whose belief was that an armed citizenry was one of the best defenses against tyranny.
Where I grew up, back in the day, the only people that ever got shot were idiots who forgot to check their weapons before crossing a barbed wire fence. Sure, there was the occasional feud, but S.W.A.T. and the F.B.I. were never needed. There were NO home invasions, NO car-jackings, and NO armed robberies in my community, either. Why? Everyone was armed – and everyone knew it.
No one in my community ever locked their doors. There was no real need. Even criminals had enough sense to know that they’d need some serious firepower or the element of surprise to avoid getting killed. For crying out loud, my dad used to drive around with a loaded 12 gauge shotgun on a rack in the window of his Ford truck, while under the seat was a loaded .357 magnum. Rarely was a policeman seen, but none were needed, for the most part.
Gun Laws
Now, out of the brains of postmodern liberals, comes the idea that taking all the guns away from law-abiding people will make us safer. They think that a law will affect the actions of bad guys. Sadly, the only ones that will be safer are the criminals.
Why do I link gun control laws to legalism? It is because gun control laws are put in place by people who forget crime is a heart issue, not a weapon issue. They think that another law will make everything better because, of course, everyone obeys the law.
Some people say, “Give me a list of do’s and don’t’s and everything will be OK.” They are more than willing to give up their freedom for a perception of safety. But what they don’t want to understand is that a sinner will still sin, and a murderer will still murder, regardless of the law or the weapon in hand. And when it comes to weapons, the dark-hearted won’t be deterred by a law they don’t choose to obey. The law keepers are too easy of a target.
My suggestion: Let the self-governing citizens with the law written on their hearts keep their weapons. The law-breakers who respect no law will be forced to consider the consequences of their actions.
Did you know that you can be friends with people you don’t agree with? Well, it’s true!
I have a friend named Heather. Heather is a great person, and one that I highly respect. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for Heather, I would have stopped blogging long ago. She was one of the first ones to encourage me, so I will forever be in her debt.
I will remain friends with Heather, promote her blog, and encourage others to hear what she has to say. She is my friend and sister in Christ, but that doesn’t mean we always agree.
Issues
Heather and I disagree on some issues; some minor, others not so minor. For example, Heather is a strong believer in the idea that the King James Version of the English Bible is the perfect, inspired version. I, on the other hand, believe that the KJV is only a translation of the Word of God, not the inspired Word itself. Big difference.
Let me make this perfectly clear: people in the same family can disagree, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are family. Many people will say, “You Christians can’t agree, so why would I want to be a part of your family?” To that I would reply, “Did you agree with all of your spouse’s relatives before you got married?”
Healthy debate is a good thing. And even though we may disagree on some things, love and respect is always in order.
Go check out Heather Joy’s blog, Grow Up! She is bright, insightful, and full of spunk. You will like her, even if she does agree with Dr. Gipp.
Master Yoda, when you were stuck away in the swamp for hundreds of years, did your sense for what you considered beautiful change? I mean, with no more Yodettes around, did you ever start thinking the slimy, green critters crawling on Luke’s half-drowned X-Wing were beginning to look like wife material? Wondering, I was just.
You see, here on this earth I am beginning to wonder if my sense of beauty is being affected. As I behold what so many others consider the definition of beautiful, I fear my eyes are being damaged beyond repair!
Danged if You do, and So Forth
Women are always wanting men to think they are beautiful. Rarely do they try to excite our gag reflexes. Yet, on the other hand, when we do express our opinions we are attacked for being “male.”
Most of the time women are trying to get us in trouble by asking, “How does this dress that I don’t like make me look?” But more recently women seem to be dressing in such awfully disgusting ways, all the while still demanding that we say, “Oh sweetie, you look beautiful! That nostril necklace accents your lip stud perfectly!” God help us if we every ask, “what were you thinking?”
Our only option is to judge them fit for beholder consumption without making a judgment.
Real-World Beauty Pageant
I guess I would really like to be a real-world beauty pageant judge – similar to those who determine the predetermined winners of other beauty pageants. I could be paid to walk around shopping malls and discount stores looking to hand out trophies for “Best Dressed on Isle 9,” or “Most Modest in a Hurricane.” I could even give away prizes to single moms who kept their mascara from running while in Toys-R-Us.
Women exhibiting any of the following would be automatically expelled from the competition and fined (in dollars, cigarettes, or whatever was most valuable to them).
Spandex or Sweat Pants outside of a gym
Tube tops…including sweat pants pulled up high enough to replace a tube top
Spiked hair, especially if tipped with any color not included in a natural rainbow
Any item of clothing with PINK written on it
Any tattoo that says, Sexy, Hot, or Boy Toy
Exposed flesh that hangs beneath the bottom of a full-lenght t-shirt
Enough piercings to tenderize a 16 oz. steak
Or, any exposed undergarments, such as pink bra straps, thongs, etc.
True Beauty
However, fortunately for everyone, I am not a beauty judge (aren’t you glad?) On the other hand, I do have eyes, which does makes me a beholder. Until I go totally blind…well…some people are just going to make my eyes hurt. And that’s OK.
TRUE beauty can only be found within. Outward appearances can only reflect what is inside, at best. Real beauty is determined by a woman’s heart and actions.
“A beautiful woman who lacks discretion is like a gold ring in a pig’s snout.” – Prov. 11:22 NLT
But beware men, even women who appear beautiful on the outside may turn out to be one of Yoda’s “girlfriends”.
“Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes;” – Proverbs 6:25 ESV
“Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.” – Proverbs 31:30 ESV
So, Master Yoda, is it that stranger things are becoming more accepted, and therefore judged to be more beautiful, or are we just getting used to the swamp?
Legalism is more than a list of do’s and don’ts. It’s a way of thinking.
Legalism assumes that rules and regulations – laws – can make all the difference in the world, alleviating the fear of what happens when people are accountable for themselves. It is commonly assumed that with more laws in place people will get into less trouble. The problem is that even if a man had a rule and regulation for every area of life, he would still be responsible for his own actions.
Therefore, when someone acts responsibly in an atmosphere of loose regulation, he not only shows maturity and wisdom, but lives can be saved. Sadly, legalism and a lack of personal responsibility are at the heart of today’s story.
A Horrible Tragedy
On October 17 a tragedy took place. It was the kind of tragedy that should pull at the heart strings of every human being. An Egyptian school bus carrying approximately 60 children was hit by a train. Most of the children, ages 4-8, and two adults were killed instantly.
News reports seem to have place the blame on many people, ranging from the sleeping crossing guard to the head of the railway. News agencies from around the world keep mentioning how poor the safety records are in Egypt, each pointing out the need for more laws and greater reform.
But what saddens me is that not one news story that I have read held the bus driver responsible. In my opinion, that is where the real responsibility lay.
Speaking from Experience
As a professional school bus driver I can testify that America has plenty of laws in place regarding school bus safety, especially regarding railway crossings. But no amount of laws can make a driver stop at every railroad crossing, look in both directions at least twice, and open both doors and windows to listen for any sound of an approaching train. Even with all the laws that are in place, there are still accidents. It is always, always the responsibility of the driver to watch for danger.
Even if everyone in the country of Egypt had neglected their duties, the driver of the doomed school bus should have never crossed those tracks, whether there were working signals, or not. Flashing lights and crossing arms fail. The bus driver should have never crossed a track without being positive a train was not approaching.
It is possible that the driver saw the train and assumed that it was a safe distance away. It is possible that, when he saw no crossing arms down, he assumed the train was going slowly, if not stopped. The laws may have permitted the driver to cross the tracks if he thought the train was a safe distance away. The problem is that the speed of an approaching train is nearly impossible to determine. If he saw the train, he should have never crossed the tracks.
A Better Law
In my opinion, the buck stops with the driver. He (or she) was the one ultimately responsible for the safety of his priceless cargo. He made the decision to unwisely cross the track, despite any law that may or may not have been in place, and he paid the price.
Legalism sets up laws for us to follow. It does it’s best to guard us against every foreseeable circumstance. But no law can replace responsibility. No law can guide us better than a pure conscience. No written law, however well-intentioned, can replace the law of God written on the heart transformed by the Spirit (Ps. 40:8; Jer. 31:33; Rom. 8:3-5).
Unless you live under a rock or play video games all day while your mom does your laundry and pays your bills, you are probably aware that there was an election held in the United States. And unless you are so “spiritual” that you could care less who leads the nation in which you live, you are probably aware that Barack Obama was elected to a second term.
That being said, I thought I would share with you what happened on Wednesday morning, the day after the election.
Elementary Conclusions
If you do not already know, I drive a school bus in the mornings and afternoons to supplement my income as a bi-vocational pastor. The students I transport range in age from 5 to 18.
On Wednesday morning, after transporting the older students to school, I stopped to pick up my first elementary students. At 7:41 a.m. the first three, two girls and one boy, got on the bus
As happened earlier in the morning with the middle and high school students, chants of “Obama won! Obama won!” rang out and echoed within the aluminum walls of my bus. It was like both young and old went to the same victory rally. Then, a sweet, little girl (I won’t mention her name) came up behind me as I was driving and excitedly asked,
“Did you know Obama won?”
“Yes, I know.”
“Who did you vote for, Mr. Baker?”
“I voted for Mr. Romney.”
“Ewwww! Boooooo! Why did you vote for Romney?”
“Why do you think I voted for Mitt Romney?” I asked.
“Because he was too white, that’s why.”
How insulting! She thought (assumed) that I voted for Romney because he looked like me. Why would she think that? Whatever she believed is what she was taught at home. Whatever she thought of me was based on what she was told about all white people. What was I supposed to say?
I spoke the truth. “[Little girl],” I said, “that was a very racist statement.”
Alive and Well
Sadly, after all the progress that has been made in this great nation, racism is still alive and well, but not in the form people want to admit. Reverse-racism is just as much racism as any other kind, but few recognize it, and fewer condemn it.
Wednesday morning I was essentially labeled a bigot because I voted for a candidate that was the same race as me. If that was true, then what does it say about those of a different color who voted for the candidate that looked like them? Are they bigots, too?
Believe it or not, legalism and this story have a lot in common. Legalism assumes the thoughts and intentions of another based on outward appearances and man-made teachings. Reverse-racism, at least in my case, assumed my intentions because of my skin color. Now, what was it that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said?
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.…[1]
Legalism ignores the “content of one’s character” as long as outward appearances don’t match a pre-determined template for holiness, while reverse-racism disqualifies legitimate concern and silences those who would speak out.
Both legalism and reverse-racism tend to cause people to act out of fear, rather than conviction. Both steal a person’s God-given freedom to think.
Both are wrong.
[1] William J. Federer, Great Quotations: A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Quotations Influencing Early and Modern World History Referenced According to Their Sources in Literature, Memoirs, Letters, Governmental Documents, Speeches, Charters, Court Decisions and Constitutions (St. Louis, MO: AmeriSearch, 2001).
The Recovering Legalist 