The context required is all of Romans 14, but for brevity here is verses 14 and 15.
14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
This raises a question. I don't want to offend a brother weak in the faith. But what about a mature Christian who may believe I am sinning because I do not obey a law that they have made. A good example of this would be the Southern Baptist restrictions on alcohol. I am a Christian, and I enjoy a glass of wine or a beer from time to time. (look at Psalm 104:15) If someone who believes that drinking alcohol is sinful and desires that I follow their law, does this fall under the weaker brother principle, or should I respond to them like Jesus did the Pharisees.
I got my question answered through John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I don't have a copy of it right here with me, but I'll summarize the gist of what Calvin said.
Basically, Calvin believed that our respect for our brothers freedom extends to bothers who are actually weak and not to Pharisees. In scripture this is shown clearly through Paul's different responses to circumcision. Simply put, Paul had Timothy circumcised, but he flatly refused to circumcise Titus. (See Acts 16:1-3 and Galatians 2:1-5.) Paul also refers to circumcision as a yoke of bondage in Galatians 5:1-4.
So, is Paul contradicting himself? Why Timothy and not Titus? What seems to be the difference is that Timothy was circumcised because the Jews in the area would have been harder to reach if he were not circumcised. The influence for Titus to be circumcised came from inside the church by people who wanted Titus and others to obey the Jewish law. The gospel was at stake here, so Paul and Titus stood up for the principles of the gospel rather than subjecting themselves to man's law. So, we are to stand up when a Pharisee threatens our liberty with Christ, but we should be able to sacrifice our liberty for the sake of the gospel with relative indifference.
A practical example of this taking place is that the VFC house does not have any alcohol inside it whatsoever. It might harm our witness if a freshman came into the ministry house, saw beer in the fridge and concluded that this is just another frat house. The guys that live in the VFC house have restricted this liberty for the sake of the gospel. However, if there is a law imposed on me from someone saying that I cannot drink alcohol and be a member of the church or a missionary, I should not accept the law. It is different to sacrifice a liberty for the sake of the gospel and giving up a liberty due to a legalistic tradition.
I thought it was interesting, and am grateful to see this issue explained.
1 comment:
Momma Jules here:
All well said! Another point to be made is that in some situations we should temporarily "give up a liberty" out of respect for another individual. Not because we agree with their beliefs, but simply to just respect them! Some examples are: choosing to not drink in front of someone who is firmly against drinking because they believe it is wrong; not taking communion/lord's supper when visiting a church that does not have an "open" table; wearing a head covering (or wearing a dress, or removing shoes) when entering a place of worship which "requires" it; a young man cutting his hair to be in his best friend's wedding because the church doesn't allow long hair on men, etc. I see this as an outward expression of Christian love for another, even though that person's/church's beliefs are "off base" in accordance with our own understanding of the Scripture. It does not harm us or compromise our beliefs by choosing to "let go" temporarily out of our respect for another person we hold dear.
Post a Comment