Why Do You Despise Your Brother? Rom 14:10
Recently I have been wrestling with concepts of "Christian liberty". That is, how do we as brothers and sisters in Christ live in peace with one another, loving one another without passing judgment upon one another when it comes to living out our personal lives in faith before God(Read Romans 14-15)? I care to cite only four of thousands of "issues" within the Christian community; Movies, Drinking (responsibily), Smoking, and Music. I know, I know, the list thing is scaring you about right now, since it eerily reminds you of Camp, but fear not, I am no evangelist and I am certainly not going to ask you to bow your heads and raise your guilty little hands! No, I really mean it. How do we co-exist with one another in love, not pretend "I love you" gestures either! I mean, really love one another, which includes accepting one another without ANY despising (Rom. 14:10-12).
I could go all night, and I mean alllllllll night, on debating what is a sin and what is not, but that is not my point. Rather, I want us to dialogue on how we can express love, true genuine biblical love, toward one another when we do not share the same conscience within the realm of "liberty". That is to say, if you enjoy an ice cold Bud after work, and is sanctified through faith and prayer than I want to rejoice with you, as someone I love and for whom Christ has died. I mean it! And I also want to rejoice (and despise NOT) in my brothers who cannot in faith drink an ice cold Bud after work, but think that God would rather have them drink an ice cold Pepsi (not Coke though, that's just...hmmm...not fitting):).
In sum, I hope to encourage you to think through these "issues". Those who are "strong" in faith cannot despise the "weak" (or those who simply are different in conscience than you) and those who are "weak" must not despise the "strong" (or those who simply are different in conscience than you) otherwise, we do not love the elect for whom Christ died and that is an offense none of us can rightfully continue in.
There will be more on this in future posts, but I really just want to share my initial thoughts with you and I hope to challenge you and be challenged by you. This is no exposition of Rom 14-15 nor was it meant to be. If this is too elementary for you than sorry, but I am thinking about this a lot, especially in concert to future ministry.
I could go all night, and I mean alllllllll night, on debating what is a sin and what is not, but that is not my point. Rather, I want us to dialogue on how we can express love, true genuine biblical love, toward one another when we do not share the same conscience within the realm of "liberty". That is to say, if you enjoy an ice cold Bud after work, and is sanctified through faith and prayer than I want to rejoice with you, as someone I love and for whom Christ has died. I mean it! And I also want to rejoice (and despise NOT) in my brothers who cannot in faith drink an ice cold Bud after work, but think that God would rather have them drink an ice cold Pepsi (not Coke though, that's just...hmmm...not fitting):).
In sum, I hope to encourage you to think through these "issues". Those who are "strong" in faith cannot despise the "weak" (or those who simply are different in conscience than you) and those who are "weak" must not despise the "strong" (or those who simply are different in conscience than you) otherwise, we do not love the elect for whom Christ died and that is an offense none of us can rightfully continue in.
There will be more on this in future posts, but I really just want to share my initial thoughts with you and I hope to challenge you and be challenged by you. This is no exposition of Rom 14-15 nor was it meant to be. If this is too elementary for you than sorry, but I am thinking about this a lot, especially in concert to future ministry.
posted by adam at 4:16 PM
18 Comments:
Adam,
I think that your thoughts bring up two good points. First, our "love" is so shallow in comparison to the love of Christ. I tend to love those who can help me out and who are easy to love rather than loving everyone like Christ. The second interesting point this brings up is that we (myself) tend to make Christianity works-based rather than relationship-based. We skip over ungodly attitudes and thoughts and move straight to the issues of separation. It seems that as I have been reading the Gospels, Christ was more harsh on the "righteous" pharisees whose works were right on but whose motives were sin rather than going after the prostitutes and theives. Thanks for the encouragement for my own life to not despise my brother.
Oh God, may I love others in a way in line with the way in which I have been loved by Christ, my Saviour and my God!
Good topic Thomas. I think your comments are right on for the issues that we must consider for the sake of the ministry. I think Rom. 14:17,18 read beautifully (NIV esp. :) For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
Those not living for eat and drink but for the traits in the Spirit can please God. Not what they do or don't do, but even men will approve of a man focused on the kingdom perspective.
I think Christian liberty can only function where a knowledge of one's orientation as "weak" or "strong" is known. Aside from this, I don't think it is possible for it to work for the weak will inevitably push their issue as though the holiness of God is at stake on the issue, and the strong will always dismiss the weak as legalistic.
As preachers, it is our job to faithfully defend the rights of the strong, and protect the conscience of the weak. This requires that, as preachers, we rightly discern the issues between right and wrong (though we may be weak or strong) so as not to unnecessarily burden the sheep.
Its funny, this topic is right in line with a conversation I was having with Jordan H today. We were discussing the fact that we almost don't want to even talk about issues anymore because loving Christ and being controlled by the Spirit for a right relationship with God is so central.
It seems that so many of those who want to make issues the mainstream proof of their spirituality often care little about beholding the glory of God (I go back to II Cor 3:18). Christlikeness will be characteristic of those who keep Christ central, not their opinions. I love the fact that, as Barker mentioned, Romans 14 and 15 clearly states what we are to focus on (righteousness, peace, joy in the Holy Spirit) and clearly states to receive someone who is a brother, but not for the sake of arguing over opinions!! sticking with the text keeps the main things the main things.
Thanks for the observations Thomas.
t. robert baylor,
I really like your observations. You are right. It always seems as if the "weaker" brother will pawn off something they don't like as being offensive to them. I have been thinking a lot about this lately, and the question I have for you (and anyone else reading this) is do you think you can really be offended by something that is simply a preference (such as not going to movies)? Thanks for your thoughts!
jrgordon,
I think everything hangs on the meaning of "offended." We tend to think of this as "makes me upset" or "ruffles my feathers." But I think the issue in scripture always pertains to a disruption or interuption of a person's love for God. So, I think it all depends on the situation. If someone will rent a movie, but is "offended" that someone goes to the theatre, that person should be confronted as a weaker brother and be corrected.
So what about someone who thinks Miller tastes great, and someone else who thinks it's less filling?
Seriously though, talk about a knife's edge. On one hand you have a sincere, weak brother who cannot particiapate in an activity, and so you should defer to their conscience in love. On the other hand, you have the situation in Colossians where Paul made it clear that we are not to allow anyone to tell us what to eat or drink or touch. I don't feel the tension so much right now, just because of the church and school I am a part of. But in another situation, I'm sure it could be a difficult call. Are we to maintain the unity by deferring to this weak brother, or are we to maintain unity by denying this devisive brother?
g,
Whether do defer or deny is certainly a difficult call. It is nice to be in a situtation where coexisting within the body of Christ does not cause tension. In my situation, however, there is a certain amount of tension. Issues such as music and movies are prevalent, but there has only been deferring. Although deferring can lead to some sort of temporary peace, it does lend to its problems. I guess the bottom line is that the text has to be our guide, as I am sure you would agree, and we must love our brothers. I guess we can't always have great taste and less filling.
G, your thinking in the exact same thread that I am. My next post is going to confront the issue of "unity". I hope to see you reveal some of your thoughts on that.
jrgordon,
I think the issue of being offended by a preference is answered, as the others have said, in the biblical use of the term. When the Bible uses the term in these "Christian Liberty" passages, it could be better translated as one who is "caused to offend/sin" not one who is "offended." literally, a strong brother's indulgence in a Christian liberty has the possibility of causing a weak brother to actually sin.
This is NOT the situation where the so-called weak brother is saying, "I don't like what you are doing, that offends me." It is more acurately a situation where an actual weak brother with no discernment sees this liberty and says, "sweet, that means I can do ____" and participates in something that is sinful. He does not feel offended, rather, his actions become offensive.
The brother who feels "offended", is actually one who is passing judgment and should not be catered to, but should be lovingly corrected with the interest of brotherly unity in mind.
roberthall,
Ya, that makes sense. There is definitely a distinction between not liking what someone else is doing and being caused to sin. I would say (and correct me if I am wrong) that we would all agree that maintaing the unity is a necessity. Thanks for the comments.
Rob while I agree with your perspective I think that it opens up a whole new "issue". That is, what is "sin"?
Unfortunately, I must return to my "list" (drinking, smoking etc?). shouldn't our conscience's be informed (BIBLICALLY) and maturing thereby knowing BIBLICALLY, what we ought to be offended by and what we ought not be offended by?
At what point is one being unbiblical in their being offended by what they see in other brothers?
I have to go back to my dead-end job! :( so, I guess I'll TTYL
Thomas,
Certainly a close eyed look at what constitutes sin aids this discussion and a worth wild topic for another thread perhaps--I think in a issue of the liberty passages we can be reminded that Rom. 14:23. To partake in an action that I doubt its edification value for me seems to indicate sin. Thus, whenever I feel this desire to make a huge paradigm shift in my practice of Christian liberty I must be cautious. "Am I doing this out of fleshly minded indulgence" "Have I matured in my faith and understand that this particular action is much smaller than the kingdom of God."
What this looks like for everyone else I'm not sure. I do not that there are some issues right now that I would classify as liberty issues (things I would judge no other man for) which I would seemingly want to partake in however I am not certain I am seeking my own edification through them. Thus for me anyways I continue to abstain.
Any other personal pragmatics out there in wrestling with this issue?
Good consistent thoughts Barker. However, I have this inquiry for thee (apocalyptic Genre). What is meant exactly by "fleshly indulgence"? Would a pleasure of the flesh (example:buzz) be considered ungodly? I am not trying at all to be flip either. I am really wrestling with this in my mind. In other words, would a certain physiological change in one's body be right or wrong based upon our understanding of physiology alone (ex:Buzz)?
I am guessing that what constitutes "fleshly indulgence" is wanting something more than Christ? Therefore, if one wants to drink, smoke, over eat, watch a movie, etc. more than he wants the kingdom (i.e. Christ) then he is flshly minded and thus pursuing "fleshly indulgence"? Am I correct in this thinking?
I think some of the distinctions made here have been helpful. The issue of abstaining seems to be the sticking point. I liked what Barker said concerning abstaining for reasons regarding personal faith to God; however, in what way should we ever limit our liberty concerning an unbiblical issue.
We must keep in mind, the limiting of liberty refers to those who understand the issue not to be a sin issue for another, but yet is a sin issue for himself. So the question becomes, what is the responsibility of the pastor who oversees a person who believes it is wrong to go to the movies or drink alcohol? Should the pastor avoid such activities so as not to make this person upset or should he, while not rubbing it in his face, continue to do them, exhorting the person not to judge?
Thomas,
Indeed I need the Gal. 5 apocalyptic reading might be tossed out to challenge my use of "fleshly indulgence." I agree with the interp. of Gal. 5, but I partially struggle with the vocabulary changes. I think we would agree we as believers at times act contrary to the power sphere in which we have been declared to be (i.e. The Spirit). These actions are of themselves from the power sphere designated as "fleshly." It is important to avoid the Colossian heresy (as someone mentioned above), which amounts to dualism (anti-body living).
I can complete agree with your reworking of my meaning in your post; however, I want us to consider the true use of "deeds of the flesh" as a lapsing action of the regenerate.
Baylor-
Not trying to be word-splitter but I would prefer the discussion of non-biblical versus unbiblical (which I assume Baylor means).
There are many non-biblical things that can be limited due to one reason or another. I think Paul's discussion of singleness in I Corinthians can be considered in this light. Some are indeed eunuchs for the kingdom; however, not everybody has to do this.
Then regarding our age old question of pastoral pragmatics:
I think somewhere along the line of continue to practice w/o rubbing face in it and exhorting to judge is on target. I contend as someone stated above that we should seek to mature the faith of the weak. This may never result in the partaking of the liberty issue, yet the person must learn so as not to judge.
Yeah,
What he said!
Post a Comment
<< Home