Imagine that the apostle Paul has an iPhone with Instagram capabilities. Do you think he would send this out to all of his Jewish friends:
“Eat this Jews!”
Because of the work of Christ people are now free to eat bacon. Yet, some early Christians had a difficult time making this transition. They grew up thinking that everything that came from a pig was dirty and defiled. In the same way some Gentiles had a difficult time eating food that had been previously offered to idols. Others believed they were free to do anything.
This was Paul’s response to both:
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel that I may share with them in its blessings.
You can ask several questions of this text and debate them all day. But one thing is clear. The gospel caused Paul to be absolutely “others” focused. It’s the same thing he said in Galatians 5. “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”
I don’t see Paul sending an Instagram photo of him eating bacon so as to teach people a theology of freedom. He didn’t flaunt his freedom as a way of showing the supremacy of Christ. In fact truly free people don’t flaunt their freedom, they quietly enjoy it. When you are free—and really living in freedom—you aren’t focused on the freedom itself. In Christ our focus is now on our liberty to truly love and follow Christ and lovingly serve others.
And that’s what has me bothered by much of the behavior of my generation when it comes to Christian freedoms. We pretend like Jesus Christ died to make us free–and then we stick a period on that statement and move on. But there isn’t a period there. There is a comma. Jesus Christ died to make us free, so that we can “through love serve one another”.
Listen, the last thing I want to do is give a list of rules. When we are talking about these Christian freedoms I don’t think “right/wrong” is the most helpful question. It’s usually an issue of wisdom and an issue of love. So I propose three questions to ask ourselves about our freedoms:
- Are you using your freedom to serve yourself or others? How so?
- Is your identity in Christ or in your “freedom”?
- Are you free to NOT engage in this freedom? (Here you need to read this article by Patrick Schreiner which links to this helpful article by Brett McCracken.
There is more to be said on this, but I’ll leave it there for today…
Bingo!
I read this article last week and it was the primary influence for my comment on the monster OP (407 comments at this reading!). I have had too many conversations (Hey look what I get to (publicly) do now!) and read too many facebook postings (do wineries do 90% of their tours on Saturdays/Sundays?) where “freedom” is celebrated without any context to “freedom in Christ”.
Yes, I am being presumptuous. But then again, so are clergy who transpose their proper gospel understanding of freedom in Christ to laity who just want an excuse to live lawlessly.
I’ve got a post coming out tomorrow on cautious freedom that is largely motivated by a John Newton article on Christian liberty. And he makes a similar point that those who have a “proper gospel understanding of freedom in Christ” have to be careful b/c people can see us exercising our freedom and live lawlessly.
Thanks for the comment.
I think this is pretty awesome. But I want to tee up something for you to swing at:
Did Paul intend that “weaker brothers” control the behavior of others with regard to eating meat sacrificed to idols or–in the case of Southern Baptists–drinking alcohol. My view is that he didn’t intend that and freedom is indeed freedom. But it is freedom with a conscience. I think the big issue is whether the Holy Spirit informs and directs the conscience actively or whether we’re completely without divine guidance regarding the sensation of “guilt” imposed by others.
Having participated in several threads here on antinomianism, I think it’s a mistake to enable the behavior of managing externals in the name of some kind of compliance committee approach to living our faith out loud. And you’re on a path to enabling that behavior, so the ball on the tee for you is how to balance what you’re writing against that behavior…
Things that are freedom of conscience are things that the Bible does NOT deal with….example; eating pork; chewing tobacco; smoking a pipe; how long a man’s hair should be before he starts looking effimenate; whether to eat in restaurants that sell liquor, or not: etc, etc, etc.
The Bible does talk about the foolishness of drinking fermented wine. The Bible does deal with alcohol. It’s not a matter of conscience and weaker brother. It’s a matter of listening to what the Bible teaches about drinking something that can bite a person like a cottonmouth snake, and how unwise that is….and, how being drunk, or high on alcohol is a sin against God. That’s not a weaker brother thing…that’s a wisdom and obedience to the Bible thing.
David
Well, ok, pork. Why is it lawful for Christians to eat it when it was unlawful for Hebrews under the Law (which includes the landed Israelites and the exiled Jews including the ones that returned after the Babylonian exile as well as the ones in Judea that adopted the term “Jew” from the returning Babylonian exiles) not to eat it?
Peter was chastised by Paul for enabling the judaizers as a reminder and Peter was the guy that got that vision about the descending sheet. As a reminder. I’m not trying to say this is super complicated, but there is more nuance in the Bible on this subject than we’re actually taking into account.
In addition, there is little doubt in my mind that Paul’s position on this was designed to very much create a compromise between those who felt liberty to eat meat sacrificed to idols and those who did not feel the same liberty. But let’s be very clear: how on earth did people with the same Holy Spirit end up with different beliefs on this subject? And why did Paul essentially propose a compromise that respected both liberty AND conscience?
And back to my earlier question: is conscience informed directly by the Holy Spirit or is it a facility of the mind alone with no spiritual facility? It really is an interesting question to at least juggle even if we can’t find a satisfying answer primarily because it seems Paul gives individuals credit for listening to their conscience. (I’m going to offer he doesn’t use that word, but I’m inserting it here for convenience in discussing the phenomenon.)
Greg,
It’s not really for me to balance. Especially not on a blog. That is something that needs to take place in a local church within the context of relationship and seasons of teaching.
One of the things Newton said in that letter is that, “no one person can adjust the medium, and draw the line exactly for another. There are so many particulars in every situation, of which a stranger cannot be a competent judge…”
I’d say that if you aren’t a “weaker brother” then you need to worry about Paul’s admonition to you “the strong” and not so much how to keep from being oppressed by the weaker brother. Seems to me that what Paul is really getting at is whether or not we are free to serve our weaker brothers—even if that means that they do control our behavior b/c of their weaker consciences.
So often these talks get off-rail because we start worrying about the other guys obedience instead of just focusing on our own. I’ve got enough trouble obeying what the gospel requires of me…much less what it requires of others.
“So often these talks get off-rail because we start worrying about the other guys obedience instead of just focusing on our own. I’ve got enough trouble obeying what the gospel requires of me…much less what it requires of others.”
Dead on. I would observe this: Paul also does not indicate the ‘weaker’ were supposed to go around asking for people to restrain their behavior. The strong were to see, know, and implement their own self-restrictions for the sake of the body.
And yes, that means that you may have a portion of your life controlled by the weaker among the body in your context. If it builds the body and witnesses to the Gospel, then is that not what we’re supposed to do?
Amen, Doug.
In so far these things are concerned the scriptures themselves give us the balance that you are seeking. These liberties can be indulged in provided we are not in the presence on someone who will be caused to stumble by seeing us exercise such liberty. Paul was saying very clearly that liberty is always to be tempered by responsibility. Paul believed in this so much that he was even willing to set aside his liberty if it meant causing a weaker brother to stumble. 1Cor. 8:13 “Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat [forever], in order that I may not cause my brother to sin.”
Now I think that we have a danger here though because I don’t think that our liberty is limited simply because another Christian doesn’t like what we are doing. These passages have to do with doing harm to that weaker brother and causing them to sin. Otherwise we would always be held hostage by the perpetually weaker brother.
See, I’m not sure that “held hostage” is the right term. Serving a weaker brother isn’t bondage. It’s freedom.
I understand what you are saying Mike, but what I mean is the person who is not being caused to stumble but simply doesn’t like someone else exercising their liberty sometimes do try to play the part of the perpetually weaker brother in order to modify everyone’s behavior.
No doubt, that happens. And when it does that’s when the messy discipleship that Tarheel speaks of below needs to happen. The question is, what is the best way to disciple? Is it to flaunt our bacon? How do we best serve them?
I think that’s a tricky one. Not sure I’ve got it figured out yet.
Two issues here. Are you serving your weaker brother by giving up your Christmas tree if one doesn’t believe in them, or not celebrating Halloween because someone else doesn’t like it? Or are you serving your brother by doing those things yet respecting, encouraging a weaker brother in his views of not celebrating not having a Christmas tree etc. ?
I read a lot of words on laity people getting the license to sin. I don’t buy that one. Laity who are Christians have the same Holy Spirit you do as a minister. They love God with all their heart and do not wish to sin. Most are very well studied in scripture. It seems laity are seen as dumb sheep who want to sin without guidance and that is not true and an excuse or unfounded fear to control. Something the Bible does not condone. Trust your congregation. Trust the Holy Spirit to guide them. Sit back and relax a little. God does not fail in them. Liberty is not a bad thing. (Phil. 1:6).
I don’t think we should flaunt our bacon, but we shouldn’t hide it either. That is not freedom, that is being held hostage by a weaker brother.
Good books in the Bible that speak on this and are worth a deep look at are Ephesians, Galatians, the Corinthians, all of Paul’s writings who especially speaks on Liberty and Freedom while putting them in the proper context of not offending a weaker brother.
I should say that is being held hostage by a weaker brother who thinks himself or herself spiritually strong. It is also allowing them to continue to be weak without showing them the truth in scripture.
Wow, Debbie!
Those posts are a blessing. 😉
As the one who raised the clergy / laity concept…
1) I am a layperson.
2) I praise God that all of you are in churches where the vast majority of laypeople submit themselves daily as living sacrifices, submitting their freedom to holiness. Your saints clearly understand the gospel implications and exercise their freedom as unto their Savior in all aspects of their lives.
3) Can I join your church?
And Ms Debbie,
“Laity…Most are very well studied in scripture.”
It appears you are operating in an echo chamber of healthy churches. Perhaps my experience is just coincidentally an echo chamber of unhealthy churches.
Perhaps.
Mike Leake,
I agree with you completely that ultimately the question is how can we serve others.
Debbie,
Paul tells us “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.” If so, we must desire to become weak and know what weak means. Is a Christmas tree a sign of weakness or legalism? The Jew was the legalist. So, if you become a Jew to the Jew, what does that mean? I think that freedom is not a relaxed approach but the ability to be able to be all things to all men which takes on more than most people want to think freedom means. We are not free to do, but free to be.
Bruce, you write:
“If so, we must desire to become weak and know what weak means.” I think in addition to your comment, we also need to agree that Paul wasn’t writing proscriptively, he was writing aspirationally. That doesn’t mean there isn’t explicit guidance being provided, but he was trying to get both sides to extend love and respect to each other.
It takes a meek person to agree to respect a position he or she disagrees with. Or perhaps one that perceives there is a bigger picture that matters more. I think that’s why Paul offers the guidance he offers. It isn’t JUST that we would capitulate. It is that there is a bigger picture than JUST ourselves. Which is the point you’re making.
But the bigger picture isn’t that we can turn into pretzels to not offend or to please others. The bigger picture is that if we attend to relationship in a helpful and meaningful way, then that should result in walls coming down and the better relationship results from those walls coming down. I just don’t see that Paul’s point is permanent capitulation to every goofy restriction someone else out of weakness proposes.
And I’ll happily recite AGAIN some of the restrictions that Southern Baptists in moments of “holiness” have proposed for each other if that is helpful. This isn’t a call for accepting all form of sin. But neither is the expectation that every human-written guideline–especially those designed to hedge sin–is to be adhered to just because someone else expresses offense at a lack of willingness to submit. Or basically what Debbie was saying.
Greg,
I agree with you here, “he was trying to get both sides to extend love and respect to each other.” If someone is preaching or teaching that we should ‘not’ have Christmas trees, he has already set in his mind a legal format and closed the discussion. He is not weak, he is a legalist. On the other side, if a person is in discipleship and sincerely acknowledges that having a Christmas tree still affects his conscience, we are to be weak to the weak in understanding how the conscience works. It may take years of discipling and teaching the whole counsel of God before that sinks in. Legalism still has its residue on me. A good example, of course, would be Paul the Jewish Pharisee. Others would be Muslim’s, Hindu’s, Buddhist and other religions with strong indoctrination methods. Today’s church is weak because we simply do not work to unify the body patiently.
Thanks
Mike: Or it could be that cynicism abounds in your observations. I am not saying this ferociously, just being honest with my thoughts. So many seem to live in a negative type environment that it becomes a way of life. People are not ever going to live up to what some think the expectations are, but are living freedom which like Grace is barely taught in some churches and totally misunderstood. The Holy Spirit changes those in Christ and guides us. We are promised by God that he will not let us stay as we are.
Too few sermons bring who we are in Christ and bring moral lessons, or added list of what one should and should not do. This post with some of the comments seem to me to be doing the same thing. We can’t have liberty in Christ if we are to forsake it for those who do not understand liberty or freedom in all things. The Bible says that God made all good things for us to enjoy. Enjoy, not put aside for someone who wishes to be in bondage of the Law and not just the Law but what they have added to it by twisting passages.
I think most here would be surprised at what scripture laity knows. A lot. Most could take their spot in the pulpit(men and women) and preach a Biblically sound sermon or teach Sunday School at any time.
Yes, I think our church to be very healthy, but I also come from a background of very controlling doctrine. I have been at Emmanuel Baptist for 20 plus years.
Are some people looking for an excuse to live lawlessly…absolutely.
That is why we must do the hard work to teach them to use discernment and wisdom and grace even (especially) in their exercising of their conscience freedoms.
It may be easier to simply make the habit of prohibiting things and make our own little lists of do’s and don’t (whether these listed items are prohibited in scripture or not) , maybe by doing so we can make our lives seem a little easier….but making disciples includes teaching and leading and mentoring even when it might get messy.
People misunderstand and misapply biblical teachings from their pastors all the time, don’t they? I am not sure what we can do about that, honestly…except to do our job to make sure that if they do, its not because we weren’t clear, biblical, and gospel centered.
I clearly see the difference between:
a) telling someone that posting about alcohol on SBCVoices is unwise,
and
b) telling someone they are sinning if they post about alcohol on SBCVoices.
I guess I don’t understand why that isn’t a clear concept.
I feel like I’m missing part of a conversation here. Help me out.
Mike Leake,
I consistently see the word ‘prohibit’ in both this OP and when that concept is not being put forth. Advising that something is unwise is not the same as prohibiting something.
To be fair, I think some abstentionists get hung up on the word moderation as well. Visions of keggers floating in their heads…;)
When you say, “this OP” are you meaning Tarheel’s comment or my original post? Because I can’t find where I used that word.
I do understand your comment–and agree with it. I’m just trying to understand where it is coming from.
My mistake…I hit Submit before I edited the comment correctly.
I meant to say that the word prohibition was being thrown out in the comments in your OP and the recent monster OP. I was indeed responding to Brother Tarheel.
It’s very interesting that everyone’s experiences and contexts strongly bias their approach to wrapping their minds around freedom in Christ.
My parents traditional SBC church approached this subject in a legalistic manner. The SBC mega church we attended approached it more from a wisdom perspective. The non-denom we just recently left (in an area enslaved with severe alcohol and drug addictions) approached it as license.
Those are the experiences that shape my abstaining moderationist position.
Mike,
Prohibitionism is exactly what certain posters put forward in the other thread.
If you’re unsure of that…take about an hour and read the monstorocity of a thread.
A couple of them are convienently not using that word….but that’s exactly what they’re all saying.
I agree with your post. You are right.
In reference to the over 400 posts on the ‘wine is a mocker’ post referenced by Mike above, I would like to point out that that no one wrote an article ‘flaunting’ freedom to enjoy alcohol as a beverage, or ‘flaunting’ the teaching of a graceful understanding of the freedom
….but a teetotaler did write what can only be described as an intentionally provocative and somewhat mean spirited article about those who espouse moderationism.
Others joined him in the bashing.
Also, these prohibitionists (pretending that the bible supports their legalism) called into question the “sanity”, “wisdom”, and essentially the pastoral bonafides of not only those pastors who may have the conscience freedom to enjoy a beverage in moderation but also those who lovingly and gracefully seek to allow those with the freedom to exercise a freedom they have, again absent sinful indulgence.
Just a little context. 😉
Just a little more context…
This article appeared originally on my blog on Wed. July 24th. Well before anything that cb wrote for Voices. Furthermore, I read about 15 comments on that post…threw up in my mouth a little…then went back to do other things. So, this post has no organic connection to the other one.
I don’t want anyone to think that the inspiration for this post had anything to do with reading through comments on Voices or anything like that. It’s inspired by trends that I see in my own context and conversations with many in my generation.
Thanks…for clearing that up!
It seemed that they were connected….maybe a better way of looking at it is that your article is timely. 😉
It did not take me 15 comments to throw up in my mouth a little. The bluster started pretty early and has continued for 5 days.
Did the throw up taste like bacon? Just wondering.
David
Yellow flag!
That was funny right there, I don’t care who ya are. 🙂
If God didn’t want us to eat bacon, He shouldn’t have made it out of meat.
Mike,
Your pic of the fella eating a rib is making me very hungry.
David 🙂
I know this probably isn’t helping all those guys that are doing that Voices weight challenge. I might be guilty of making my brothers stumble in a post about not making our brothers stumble.
🙂
High protein (including ribs), low carb has led me to over 40lb lost for this year.
But still in moderation… I don’t eat (even if i could) an entire rack of 12 ribs.
Good post, great topic.
This passage you have used from 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 is specifically for winning all people we come in contact with to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. To the Hindu I become a vegetarian, to the Jew I become kosher and to the lost tribes of the world I eat off the land. (I didn’t use the African American or Mexican because I love Soul food and Mexican food. It wouldn’t be fair.) Once these people are won to Christ there has to be a discipleship program in place that immediately addresses the new freedoms we have in Christ or we could be seen by the Jew eating bacon with the Gentiles in the marketplace and offend them. Paul knew he had these new freedoms because of what he learned and knew about this new life. He was in his discipleship program for about 3 years, too. You have mentioned that wisdom and love are the key rather than a right/wrong approach. I agree. My question: Is this what we teach/disciple the new converts from a legalistic religion or any religion? If we cannot say right/wrong, do we allow the convert to come to their own conclusion in their own time?
Good post, Mike.
I think our generation does indeed put that exclamation point down on liberty. They don’t want to be “controlled” by the weaker brother. With that outlook, it might betray that they are the weaker brother. Freedom to serve the weaker is not control, but the grace of God working itself out through His people. Freedom to serve is emancipation from the bondage of having our way.
Paul said “Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” If we only look at what we are losing; comfort, liberty, alcohol, tobacco, tattoos, and many other controversial but not sinful things, and react with anger, we are valuing those things and our freedom over Christ.
The call to die to self is not easy. We have been set free from death and sin, but not so that “we may sin that grace may abound.” Freedom from sin is not freedom from everything. We have exchanged masters. No longer are we under the cruel direction of sin. We are no longer enslaved to selfish passions and lust. We are now under THE Master; Jesus Christ.
Good and helpful post, Mike. Thanks. Wish it had been around when I struggled with a few things years ago.
Best comment so far on this subject in my opinion Nick.
Stretching Christian liberty via “there’s nothing unclean” mentality eventually leads to antinomianism.
In regard to bacon, it’s amazing how many foods declared to be “unclean” by Jewish law have been proven to be unhealthy.
Stretching Christian liberty to the precise extent that God did by noting that God said Peter wasn’t to declare as unclean what God declared as clean on the other hand…
I’ve had friends return to the OT dietary restrictions because they’re “good for us”. I think it’s a little more honest to say that moderation in everything is the main course of the meal we would name after the comely woman “Wisdom”. Which means moderationists probably are more right than wrong…and scriptural to boot!
Max, freedom does not lead to antinomianism. A lack of respect for the Lordship of Christ does. Freedom leads to joy and contentment in Christ.
Yes, that is what I intended to imply in “stretching” liberty. Christ is not Lord if not Lord of all that we do with our freedom. Trying to make moderation come alongside sanctification is a tough balance to hit for certain liberties. Praise God for bacon … I am joyful and contented with 2 slices!
Christian liberty would be like: I like rock and roll music. I’m a huge Lynyrd Skynyrd, Kansas, Boston, Journey, Styx, etc. fan. But, if I was around a Christian, who thought that all rock music was evil; then, I wouldn’t listen to it while they were around. Or, if I thought that rock music might lead someone astray, or into a lifestyle of sexual sins and drunkeness, then I wouldn’t tell those people that it was okay to listen to rock music. As a Believer, I enjoy listening to rock music…as well as country…I’m also a huge Merle Haggard and Alan Jackson and George Strait and others fan. Go figure….huh? lol. But, I do like both kinds of music, as well as Contemporary Christian Music….in fact, I even like some alternative music like the Civil Wars. Go figure, again, huh? But, I believe as a Christian, that I’m free to listen to this music, if I so desire….as long as the songs are clean and good….I turn the station when the songs get ugly. But anyway, in my freedom, I should also be aware of the weaker Brother, and I most certainly would not want to cause a weaker Brother to stumble….no way….no how….
So, whenever weaker Brothers are around, i limit myself to what music I listen to….
It’s kind of like with the disciples of the Early Church. Whenever the Jewish Believers were around, who would not eat pork, the disciples shouldnt serve BBQ and ribs at the Church fellowship. But, whenever the Jewish Christians werent around, then they absolutely could head down to the Rib Shack and pig out on BBQ and ribs. As long as they werent acting like Peter did, about it, in the book of Acts.
David
But,
But would you burn your records if they said you should? Because we KNOW there have been epidemics of mobs of Baptists burning records in the past…and some of them even came to regret the action…
I burned my KISS albums…no regrets…;)
But “Beth”!!
I had friends in high school attempt to recruit me to KISS. I tried to be nice in neglecting to send in my KISS army app…
All Hall and Oates records should be burned without delay.
David
Also, anything BeeGee should not only be burned, but it should also be buried along with anything with Taylor Swift singing… Also, you should seriously question your salvation and taste in music.
🙂
David
I want to disagree…I want to disagree…I’m a Southern Baptist…I must disagree…
But I can’t.
Greg,
🙂
David
I had mentioned in the comments a forthcoming article on Cautious Freedom. Here it is:
http://www.mikeleake.net/2013/08/cautious-freedom.html
No mention of bacon. Not interested in the article without it.
Must everything be about Kevin Bacon to you, Dave? Man, I’ve heard of man-crushes but this is getting pathetic.
Currently, I am a vegetarian (a form of self-destruction), and so Kevin is the only Bacon I can enjoy.
Well enjoy that Footloose marathon.
“Tremors” then “The Air Up There” (how did that NOT get a Oscar?), then a thriller, “The River Wild”, followed by the uplifting and inspirational Apollo 13. Cap it all off with his tour de force, “She’s Having a Baby.”
Wanna come over?
I’ll catch the first flight to Iowa that I can get. Ya’ll do accept planes into your country right?
Hey, Sioux City has its own airport. Two or three flights a day. American Airlines to Chicago O’Hare.