What a Difference a Line Makes - part 1

"Because you're mine, I walk the line." - Johnny Cash

There is an old saying among country folks when referring to a young man and his beloved: "that boy better walk the line if he wants to marry her!" or "she'll be good for him. she'll make him walk the line."

It is always meant to convey that the young man had some growing up to do, and that he was courting a young lady that wouldn't go for just any old joker who tried to make nice with her. She had a self worth and respect that demanded a potential husband meet a higher level of maturity than boyhood dalliances and emotional interests. He was gonna have to be respectable and responsible if she was going to take on his name. So the potential beau had a choice to make: move on to maturity, or stay infantile and find another gal with less of a cache. Usually, the woman in the position of demanding such change was being pursued by multiple gentlemen. Thus, the beau must show the object of his affections his desire to become her heart's delight by changing his actions. Sometimes, that meant changing his appearance as well. Whatever the requirements, they were all well worth it because the man realized two very important things were happening. 1) He was becoming more attractive to her; and 2) she was helping him become the man he needed to be all along.

In our society, we have generally lost the perception of maturity. We are told from our youth that the ones who love us will accept us just the way we are. There is no need to change because if someone really loves you they will endorse you regardless of its consequences. Pee wee athletic teams no longer give trophies to the champions alone, now everybody gets a plaque that says "Good Job!", even if the team went 0-9. Honestly, how good of a job could they have done? What message are we sending with that type of action? "It's okay to be a loser as long as you get the same rewards as the ones who worked harder or had more talent"? Our kids are being taught that hard work is only for a few and that it is acceptable to be stagnant and useless, as long as someone else picks up the slack.

The church has taken on this mindset at times. I hear about and have spoken to many of my friends in the ministry on the subject of outward sanctification. Some have seen the hypocrisy of certain people who espouse the standards but either have "selective enforcement" or have character along the same lines of Jerry Springer. They have given up on the principles of outward "holiness" because it does not produce righteousness, as advertised. Others have rejected some and kept other of the afore mentioned standards, recognizing the benefits of certain admonitions but not endorsing the concepts as a whole.

For years I struggled with where I fit in with this cultural dilemma. I have never been one who jumps in with the crowd that screams aloud "without it you can't see God". This seems to be a misapplication of the writer's intended focus. He is speaking about the merits of a godly character, not an outward dress code. At the same time, I whole-heartedly accept the need for outward sanctity and a removal of harmful temptations from our lives. Those friends of mine that have abandoned teaching the need to dress differently as well as act differently are leaving out a very important fact: how we dress is an expression of who we want to be identified with to others. If I don't want to be confused for a gang banger, I shouldn't wear baggy clothes and colored bandannas. If I want to be identified with Scripture's teachings I should tailor my appearance to reflect its instructions on the subject. So I found myself for years pitting one side against the other in my head, wishing for a middle ground or just a ceasing of the war of words between the two factions.

"Can't we all just get along?".................To be Continued..............................