"Note: By "unregulated" issues of the Christian life, we are referring to the many facets of the Christian lifestyle that are not specifically regulated by New Testament commands."
INTRODUCTION:If we jump too quickly to the Bible's "conclusion" concerning unregulated areas in the Christian life, we skip over the deeply spiritual "process" it prescribes for "bringing" us to that conclusion. Thus, instead of teaching and endorsing a biblical approach that fosters insight and unity, we could be actually rewarding and perpetuating the errors of even the most immature believers around us.
While it is true that the mature believer is ever ready to give up his liberties for the progress of the Kingdom, it must not be forgotten that, in doing so, he will "look", to the outside observer, like the legalistic person who never believed he had those liberties in the first place.
If my wife, for example, believes that she has liberty in Christ to wear blue jeans, but gives up that liberty for the sake of a weaker sister who thinks that wearing blue jeans is a sign of carnality and compromise, my wife will end up dressing exactly like the weaker sister. Neither woman would be seen wearing blue jeans, and there would be no obvious way to tell that one of these women is actually free in Christ while the other is in bondage to man-made laws about fashion and apparel.
In gray areas of the Christian lifestyle a unity of sorts can be simulated as long as the mature believers keep giving up their rights. All saints, both weak and strong, will seem at first to be in perfect agreement-but only until the next person comes along with yet another man-made standard. Then the strong will be asked to surrender yet another of his Christian liberties. If this approach were to be applied thoroughly and consistently, an Amish-like or pharisaical legalism could not be avoided.
On the other hand, because there is such a variety of churches available to most of us, and because Christians get easily irritated with one another, the normal process in times of disagreement will progress from a period of mutual agitation, to an unspoken contest to determine which party should stay and which should leave the church, to an actual separation from one another into different churches (or to no church at all). It is probable that a Christian could go to church his entire life and never learn, or even seriously attempt, to live in peace with those who disagree with him.
Still, with each demand for the mature believer to surrender another of his rights to non-binding restrictions, the higher graces of Christian doctrine are more and more likely to fade from view. At some subjective point, and no one can say with certainty when that point is reached, it might be unwise for the stronger brother to allow the noose to tighten further. But the noose frequently does continue to tighten until "conservative" congregations simply have no one left who is able to truly appreciate and articulate "the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free."
There is a world of difference between asking a brother to give up his rights, and asking him to give up his sins. When a weak brother demands that a mature brother give up one of his rights, he wrongly imagines that he is asking him to forsake his foolish ideas, carnality or worldliness.
In the case of a "mature" brother asking another mature brother to give up one of his rights, the one making the request understands that no sin or foolishness is directly involved in the issue being addressed. The one doing the asking approaches his brother with humility and respect, knowing that what he requests may not be correct or in the best interest of Christ in the long term (cf. women wearing blue jeans).
If the brother chooses to give up his liberty in Christ in this regard, the mature saint who approached him has all the more respect for his brother's charity and grace. If, however, the brother chooses not to give up his rights in this case (i.e. not to allow the noose to tighten further), the mature brother who made the request of him respects him as one who is spiritually devout and wise, and perhaps even correct in making the choice he has made. In either case, spiritual insight and unity will have guided the entire discussion.
Oppositely, when a "weak" brother demands that a mature brother give up one of his rights, the mature brother knows that the weak brother is, for all intents and purposes, accusing him of foolishness or carnality. This insinuation is problematic in and of itself and will require yet another exercise of grace on the part of the mature brother in order to avoid any feelings of injury and resentment.
But, again, when a "mature" brother asks another mature brother to consider giving up one of his rights, the one who is being asked "knows" that the one doing the asking respects him as a wise and spiritually sensitive saint. This biblical atmosphere of mutual respect and thoughtful Christian unity is far superior to the strained and temporary quasi-harmony that can exist only when stronger believers continually acquiesce to the demands of those who insist on unnecessary bondage.
Certainly, the great need in many situations is for Christians to examine themselves over the prospect of giving up their rights for the furtherance of the gospel. Just as certain, however, is the pressing need in other circumstances for Christians to face honestly the implications of Christian liberty, and to live in peace with those who hold a different view from their own. This second need is that which is particularly addressed in this Bible study.
"Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.". Note that there does exist, even in a gray area of Christian thought, a "weak" point of view, and a "strong" (more correct and desirable) point of view. No thinking saint would wish to endorse the deficient doctrine.. It is the "weak" person who adds this man-made standard of vegetarianism for the Christian lifestyle as a test of Christian correctness. The strong Christian simply doesn't believe in this man-made rule. A similar dynamic can be observed in such first-century issues as requiring the observance of certain holy days (vss.4-5, Col. 2:16), Peter's unnecessary adherence to a kosher diet (Acts 10), his reluctance to be too closely associated with Gentiles (Galatians 2), the unnecessary requirement of circumcision (Acts 15, Galatians 5), etc.. Adding any rules-even Old Testament rules-to the New Testament way of life is a high-risk proposition and is represented in many Bible passages as the propensity of the weaker (incorrect) brother.. It is disobedience to a direct command of Scripture ("let not") for the weaker Christian to judge (think poorly of) the person who disagrees with his man-made rules, however much he may be convinced of them personally. He must refrain from thinking that his rule is a proof of one's godliness or wisdom. This is because, as it often turns out, the rule itself is not wise and godly as he supposes, but is actually in error.. It is also disobedience to a direct command of Scripture for the stronger brother to become resentful of the weaker brother's legalism and suspicion towards him.
"1 Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.". Overconfidence in the correctness of one's own viewpoint is the focus of the opening argument of this text on the subject of unregulated issues of doctrine.. A "puffed up" way of thinking is often couched in terms that falsely mimic grace: "I will be charitable and assume that she wears blue jeans just because she really doesn't know any better. When she's a little further along in the Christian life-as I am-she'll understand why it's wrong to dress like that.". Coming to the conclusion that the opposing brother is foolish or carnal is exactly the error to be avoided in this text. There must always be a true humility and love that guides every negotiation in controversy. We must not allow ourselves to become puffed up, self-assured, or unloving in these areas.. Since we "know nothing yet" as we should, we may all be ashamed one day at some of the issues we once held and insisted upon with such dogmatic determination.
"1 Cor 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness ther. 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.". Twice in this passage we are warned against asking too many questions.. If we search hard enough for faults in any matter, we are bound to find them, even if they are only imaginary faults. But this is contrary to the spirit of charity and grace that is everywhere required of the New Testament saint. A person may expect his adversaries, and those who are suspicious of him, to scrutinize his every move, but it would hardly be expected that his brothers would behave in such a way.
"Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.". The Galatian heresy featured the expectation that Christian converts would behave in accordance with Old Testament Jewish customs. Rather than asking the Galatian believers to acquiesce to the demands of their more stringent counterparts, Paul presses them instead to defend and continue on in their liberty.
"Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.". We easily forget that man-made standards are inappropriate for governing the Christian life, but we must also remember that even laws of God from previous ages are not to be imposed upon the Christian conscience.. Interestingly, in contrast to many texts that call on the stronger Christians to give up their rights when the weaker brothers demand it, this text actually commands Christians to resist and to stand against the legalistic tendencies that threaten their liberty (i.e. not to allow the noose to tighten further).
"Acts 15: For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.". Because the intention of the apostles at the Jerusalem Council was to promote Christian liberty, they published four, and only four, prohibitions. (And since the prohibition of fornication is a black-and-white issue, only three of the prohibitions of the Jerusalem Council really pertain to "doubtful" things.). "No greater burden than these necessary things" is the approach mature believers always choose in their interactions with fellow believers. Weaker brothers will tend to demand that others agree to additional and unnecessary burdens.
"Phil 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.". Strife and self-exaltation are forbidden of Christians.. To estimate the other person "better than ourselves" is to acknowledge that he may be more correct than we are in the way he approaches an unregulated area of Christian doctrine.
"Rom 12:16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits....18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.". On many occasions, the greatest test for a saint involves living in peace with those who don't agree with him. It is far easier to come to blows with one another, to live in chilly toleration of one another, to drive away those who irritate us, or to just give up and walk away from those who differ from us. This is not what the New Testament prescribes for the vast majority of such cases.
"1 Cor 13:5 [Charity] doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.". There is no justification for assigning a negative motive (foolishness, worldliness, carnality, etc.) to those who disagree with us in a gray area of life. Love forbids us to "think evil" of one another.. Being "easily provoked" over gray issues is a hallmark of spiritual immaturity-certainly inappropriate for the serious Christian.. Love demands that we "believe" the best of those who disagree with us in unregulated matters, and that we "endure" the annoyance their views may cause us.
"Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.". Our opinions must not have a "slap" in them for those who disagree with us. Far too often our communications have "bark and bite."
"1 Peter 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.". Honor (respect) and love are what we owe each person who holds to a different viewpoint than ours.
"Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.". In texts like these we see the antithesis of the "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude. God expects even the person with the highest standing in the congregation to be submissive to the person with the lowest standing.
"Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.". Jesus considers the sin of a critical spirit-the prideful desire to correct others-to be a "log-sized" sin.. A critical spirit is the basis of hypocrisy, and it is a sin that typically dwarfs the error that is being criticized by the hypocrite.. In the case of gray areas of Christian living, the one doing the gray conduct is "not" sinning (in the issue itself), but the one who thinks of his brother as foolish or carnal is guilty of all the sins that underlie hypocrisy (pride, strife, etc.).
CONCLUSION:Imagine a staunch legalist, standing like a Wild West "gunslinger" next to a spiritually sensitive peacemaker who has given up his liberties out of a commitment to unity in Christ. Most Christians probably would never be able to imagine the tremendous differences that motivate each man's "conservative" manner of living.
The "weak" Christian is conservative because he is in bondage to man-made rules and "standards." He is sure of himself (self-confident), demanding, easily willing to break fellowship with those who disagree with him, and quick to label a brother as foolish, carnal or, at least, incorrect. And even if he happens to be correct in a particular viewpoint he has embraced, he is "not" correct in the greater issues of pride and contentiousness.
The "strong" Christian is conservative, in part, because he has given up so many of his rights for the sake of weaker brothers. He is keenly aware that he might be wrong in various gray areas of the Christian life, so he doesn't expect or demand that others agree with his point of view. He assumes that those who disagree with him are wise and godly, perhaps further along in Christian maturity than he is. As a habitual peacemaker, and sensitive to the feelings and motives of others, he seldom faces the prospect of breaking fellowship with a brother over unregulated issues, and he dreads division in general. Even if he might not be correct in one of his views about an unregulated issue, he "is" correct in the greater issues of pride and contentiousness.
This weak brother and strong brother may serve side by side in the Lord's work, and may be indistinguishable from one another in the majority of their day to day lifestyle choices. In fact, the difference in their spiritual maturity is probably only really going to be apparent when they are asked to live peaceably with brothers and sisters who disagree with them. This is because only an authentic spiritual sensitivity can motivate insight and unity in the emotionally charged atmosphere of real disagreement within the Christian family.
AM I THE WEAK BROTHER?1. Am I thinking of this unregulated area as a proof of one's Christian sincerity?2. Am I demanding that other people give up their liberty in Christ?3. Am I really living in peace with those who disagree with me in this gray area?4. Am I of the opinion that those who disagree with me are foolish or carnal?5. Am I sure of myself in this unregulated issue?6. Am I in favor of adding an unnecessary burden for my brothers to carry?7. Am I communicating my views with a "slap" for any who disagree with me?8. Am I searching for real or imagined faults in a brother's views and actions?9. Am I suspicious of the character and motive of the brother who disagrees with me?10. Am I eager for a chance to speak up and correct others in this gray area?11. Am I of the opinion that criticizing a person in this unregulated issue is helpful?12. Am I comfortable breaking fellowship over this unregulated area of the Christian life?
AS A CHRISTIAN LEADER?1. Do I "discourage" those in my orbit of influence from thinking of this unregulated area as a proof of one's wisdom, Christian sincerity, or commitment to the Lord?2. Do I "encourage" those in my sphere of influence to appreciate the Christian liberty we all have in this issue, and to avoid making demands that infringe on the liberty of others in this issue?3. Do I avoid taking sides in this divisive gray issue, and do I act as a buffer between any opposing parties in an attempt to make peace?4. Do I assure all opposing parties that those who hold a different view from their own in this gray area are neither foolish nor carnal?5. Do I appreciate both points of view in this unregulated issue, and do I represent both sides fairly when addressing the subject?6. Do I encourage the people who respect my office to be slow in downgrading or criticizing their "opponents" in this unregulated issue since the downgrading itself is a grievous sin?7. Do I emphasize in my orbit of influence the essential objective of living in peace with those who disagree over this unregulated issue of Christian doctrine?
Origin: magic-and-spells.blogspot.com
