[08/10/20]
There has been another intermission in these studies as I undertook a long overdue revamp of the website where I keep these notes available. I suppose one of the risks of noting the date each day is that there are these concrete notices of gaps in the timeline, as well as observably brief entries. So it goes. I try once more to reconnect with the line of thought I interrupted a week or so back.
The overarching effort at this stage is to lend some definition to the idea of religion, and in these first several subsections, I have opted to look at certain tensions that obtain within the pursuit of Christian religion. The first of these tensions to be explored was that between our perceptions of faith and doctrine. I suppose it is something of a manufactured tension, for in truth, faith and doctrine are perfectly at ease with each other, as I hope I have managed to show. But the tension remains in our human perception of things. Faith is seemingly nebulous and ephemeral. Doctrine is altogether solid and definite. But you really can’t have the one without the other.
Now I am moving to a more difficult tension; that between word and conscience. I say that doctrine is altogether solid and definite, and yet it is quite clear that doctrine is not so thoroughly definite that all can readily agree as to its substance. It seems that quite the opposite holds true. The longer the Church has had to contemplate the doctrines of her faith, the more disagreement has arisen on just what those doctrines should be. And that lies at the heart of this new tension – new in terms only of my efforts to describe and address it here; for in truth, it is a tension as old as the Church, and for all that as old as the Bible.
What is the issue here? We have, or the most part, a Church that accepts that the Word of God is her sole, immovable guide for faith and doctrine. That is to say, what we believe, what we account as True, must look to this Word of God for its assurance. Let me be clear on something here. While we certainly hold that all truth is God’s truth, for God IS True, this is not to say in any way at all that something is false for lack of direct mention in His Word. Just as I observed that, “it is written,” is not in itself sufficient justification for one’s beliefs, so, “where is it written?” is insufficient evidence that a particular belief is somehow ungodly. The argument from silence is not much of an argument, whether it be for or against a particular point of doctrine and belief.
Much of what the Word of God has to say is said by way of setting forth principles which, while they may not directly address a particular matter, do in fact have application in said matter. Part of the challenge that the religious authorities of Jesus’ day had came down to just such a mistaken use of Scripture. The ten commandments lay out certain definite boundaries for godly life. They are formulated as, “Thou shalt,” and “Thou shalt not.” But if one supposes that their application stops at the specific matters noted, then one has entirely missed the point. That could serve as a basic summary of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. If you think that, “Thou shalt not murder,” is fully satisfied by your not having taken the life of another human, then you’ve missed the point. If you suppose that by avoiding military service as a conscientious objector gives you some insurance against the necessary taking of another’s life in the course of war and thus remaining compliant with this law, you have probably still missed the point, and perhaps now doubly so.
It would be hard to suppose that God had proscribed military service for His people when one of His first acts was to array them in troops around His tabernacle. The first leaders of His people, when they had been constituted a nation by God, were in effect military leaders; Joshua rather explicitly so, and Moses likewise, at least where the need arose. I see nothing to suggest this has changed under the New Covenant. No, we don’t find the Apostles sent forth sword in hand, and certainly there’s no call to spread the Gospel by force. Honestly, the message of the Gospel would seem to render any such effort seriously counterproductive, and I think history has borne that out. But here’s the thing: The Apostles were not establishing an earthly kingdom, but rather a heavenly one. Paul’s thinking clearly reveals that a militaristic perspective remains. It’s just that, rather like the form of worship and temple, the form of that battle has shifted dramatically. “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete” (2Co 10:4-6).
It is striking that this was written to the Corinthian church, with all its faults and foibles. It is striking as well that Paul notes his readiness to punish disobedience is held for that time when their obedience is complete. I don’t care to attempt a full dissection of that message here, but a few questions do arise in looking at it. Was he speaking of the present generation, the founding fathers of that particular congregation, and suggesting that punishment would wait until their passing? I sincerely doubt it. It’s questionable whether Paul, who had just listed off the myriad persecutions and trials he had already undergone, and no doubt sensing those yet to come, would survive to do anything by way of punishment at so late a stage. What then? I would suggest this: The ‘we’ of that passage is no royal we of Paul speaking to his subjects. Paul would hardly think of them in such terms, dear children perhaps, but never subjects. Yet, I do think that such a use of ‘we’ occurs in his writings, rather as they do in my own. But here, I think it is intentionally inclusive, and the message points us to the time for said punishment of ‘all disobedience’. That time shall come with the perfection of the Church, which is to say on the Last Day.
But I observe that even as I bring these verses forward to my purpose, I am forced to recognize that what exactly is meant by these verses is open to some interpretation. And therein lies the tension between word and conscience. The fact of the matter is that Scripture is not always so cut and dried in its declarations as one might wish. But then, however carefully it had been written, I am pretty comfortable in supposing that we would manage to misinterpret it nonetheless. It is nearly impossible, I think, to produce a document that will not be misread. In the world of engineering where I earn my living, a fair portion of our effort derives from this very fact. The architect writes his or her specifications and the designer sets forth the details of the design that will fulfill what he or she supposes the architect to have specified. Then the verification folks come along to prove that what was designed in fact conforms to what was specified. How often it proves to be the case that what the architect or designer thought clearly conveyed their intent proves unclear, or seems to the verification personnel to have clearly stated something completely different.
I could consider as well my time as an elder. We would have occasion to produce written communications to the church in our care, and would undertake to make that communication as clear as was possible under the constraints of our office, and unlikely to produce any misunderstanding. Well, either our skills with language were sorely lacking, or it is simply improbable that any such document can in fact be produced.
Look to our legal system! We have a seemingly boundless body of laws, with more being added year upon year. But what exactly do those laws require? What exactly was the intent, and removing questions of intent, what exactly has been specified? This is a large part of why we have the court system we do. And it has to be said that recent events have not been helping matters whatsoever. It’s bad enough when the legislative bodies produce works that would compete with the Encyclopedia Britannica for size that purport to describe the new law, but in fact manage no more than to lay the groundwork for further legal actions that will attempt to discern meaning in the mess. Might as well go back to enquiring in entrails. It would be about as clear, and probably a sight easier. But when we now add executive branch elements passing down whatever edicts happen to invade their thinking day by day, it becomes an absurdity. The impact appears to be that people have by and large decided that law is not much more than suggestion anyway. What, for example, constitutes ‘wearing a facemask’? Is it the object that is described, or its position? If I wear it on my forehead, is it not still a mask, and being worn on my face? If the thong facemask ostensibly offered by Victoria’s Secret is a real thing, does it not satisfy the letter of the law, to the degree there is in fact a law and any letter involved in it? But I digress.
[08/11/20]
What, then, am I attempting to say here? The Word of God must surely be the rule and guide for the Church. Herein God has seen fit to set forth those truths about Himself and about ourselves which He knows to be necessary for our salvation and sanctification. Herein we have a true revelation of God, revealed by Him to His own, recorded through the hand of those whom He chose as His instruments, always under the watchful oversight of the Spirit. Herein He has declared to us Who He is, what He is like. Herein He has recorded His covenant with His people. Herein He has described all that He requires of His people under the terms of this covenant. He has revealed to us our true condition, and He has prescribed the remedy. He has declared the shape and the nature of that worship which is pleasing to Him. All of this is contained within the written record we have in the Bible, a first point of reference for defining the Word of God.
We must also recognize the enormity of Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh (Jn 1:14). What are we intended to make of that description of our Savior? We must return to John’s first words in his gospel. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1). This is Who became flesh, and dwelt among us. This is the One to Whom the Apostles give witness, and as John says of this living Word, “we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14). I am not certain that we could read the sense of completeness into that ‘full’, but certainly there is the sense of being thoroughly permeated by it. Certainly, there is a significant school of thought which would take this as indeed indicating completeness, and all the more because of what we have said in Hebrews 1:1 in regard to God speaking through Him in these last days, in the eschaton hemeron. If this is the final period, then there is no further period into which God might speak further is, I suppose, the reasoning. I should think the stronger argument for a full and final revelation of all which God chooses to reveal might consist in the words of this living Word. “I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (Jn 17:14). Add this to His earlier declaration to His disciples. “All things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you” (Jn 15:15b).
The full scope of John’s message regarding the Word made flesh is that He has in fact fully revealed everything that the Father determined to have revealed. The message is complete. This might lead to the somewhat awkward question of why the Apostles felt it right to write so much more after His departure, but the answer is, for the most part, simple enough. They who had learned first-hand recognized the difficulty of truly understanding what God had spoken in Jesus, or for all that, what He had spoken prior to Jesus come in the flesh. They had, after all, required a fair amount of private tutelage at His feet to understand, and more than that, they had had to live through some seriously traumatic events, and even then, to be vibrantly indwelt by the now present Holy Spirit before they could really claim to understand in any great degree. Even then, there was need for goading and correction in order for the full scope of God’s plan to come clear to them. The one text we cannot readily explain in this light is The Revelation, given to John in his time of exile. Indeed, so great an exception is that text that many a church leader of old questioned its inclusion in the Bible. But it found its place at last. Perhaps I shall explore that further in a few weeks as I more directly consider the matter of canonicity. Here, however, I am simply attempting to establish the centrality and controlling power of the Bible as the Word of God when it comes to the beliefs and governance of the Church.
Upon this Word alone can any valid doctrine be founded, for apart from this foundation we are left with nothing but vain imaginations; imaginations which, as I observed earlier, are at war with the Truth of God in us. Vaporware is bad enough in the world of computers and commerce. It is utterly malevolent in the realm of faith and worship. This is not a place for contrivance and ingenuity. We do well to remember the sons of Aaron in that regard, and what befell them when they decided they could worship according to their own ideas. That is not a safe path for any man, let alone for the Church. Many a denomination has proven that, and many more seem determined to do so today. If we will not have our conscience bound by the Word of God then we sell it cheaply to whatever latest fad in thinking desires to enslave it. Wherefore do you suppose the current paroxysms of so-called critical theory and intersectionalism have arisen? Having thrown off the Truth of God, man at large founders about looking for something to lend meaning to his meaningless existence, and somehow it seems that being a perpetually powerless victim has an appeal. Cheap virtue, I suppose.
But this is not a course left open to the people of God. We have the guide book. We have the definition of holiness and of sinfulness. We have the order of worship for those who would in fact worship God in spirit and in truth. It remains to us, then, to seek to understand what it is that is written therein. And this is where the counterweight of conscience comes into play.
That may very well be the most difficult aspect of shared faith. We long, I think, for a Bible that lays things out in such clear, black and white language as brooks no dispute as to his meaning, but that is not the Bible we have been given. There are truly difficult passages in here. There are others which, it must be accepted, can lead men of sound faith and good will to radically differing conclusions. Our denominations are not by and large – at least they ought not to be – repudiations of all other denominations as wholly of the devil. It can transpire that we fall into such thinking, and in some cases, I should have to say it’s probably pretty accurate. When so-called Christian so-called churches are putting admitted atheists in the pulpit, or insisting that something completely at odds with the clear statements of Scripture be held forth as true, it’s hard to see how this is anything but the work of the devil. But on matters such as those which divide most denominations, at least in their inceptive forms, this is amicable disagreement over interpretation.
Having taught a class on the London Baptist Confession of Faith, I had opportunity to compare and contrast that with the Savoy Declaration and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Again, these are things more suited to a subsequent section of this work, but here let me just observe this: Those three confessions, the foundations of three of the more prominent branches of Protestantism were quite intentionally kept nearly identical. In each case, there are some minimal number of points of departure, and those are enumerated, but the greater focus of these founding documents is upon the unity of the Church even in this new denominationalism. Oh, there may be questions as to what is appropriate for baptism, whether the church has sacraments or ordinances, what exactly transpires in Communion, and how the church is to be organized and governed, but here's the thing: In all cases, the conclusions drawn by these various denominations are drawn upon one basis: The best understanding of what the Bible says in regard to the matter under consideration. In taking their separate course, these denominations did not decry one another, but rather joined in joyful confession of one faith in one God.
We might find it harder to work in the Methodists and other denominations with stark disagreements over what are to us significant matters of understanding. But even here, I would hope that, so long as our understandings are arrived at by serious consideration of the Biblical record, we manage to acknowledge our shared faith. There are those fundamentals of the faith to which we all adhere. There is a Truine, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing God, and it is He alone Who has our worship. There is a revealed Word of God, the Bible, in which we find written the revelation of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, the God-Man, the Second Person of this Triune Godhead, and also the Holy Spirit, sent forth of the Father and the Son to indwell the living Church which is built not of brick and mortar, but of the individual lives of believers in all ages.
[08/11/20]
It has to be said that the question of conscience, while critical, is also fraught with dangers. If we simply let conscience be our guide, there is the necessary question of what is guiding our conscience? Without the firm foundation of the Word, conscience is a most unreliable guide, worse even than the blind leading the blind, for the conscience is led by something. Its precepts and its worldview don’t just pop into being. The humanist would, I suppose, put it down to intellect shaping one’s ideas, and one’s ideas shaping one’s view of the world, and up to a point he would be right. The atheist might even go so far as to question the validity of conscience as anything more than a fantasy construct. It doesn’t require a great deal of effort on our part to get a sense of what life is like when this model becomes the norm. We’re living in the midst of it. We have movements that insist that gender is whatever you think it is, and what you think it is must surely trump mere physical reality. And this, we are told, must hold not only for the one suffering said delusions, but for all with whom they interact. It must be legally enforced that we accept their madness as valid.
We have seen, in recent days, efforts to insist that even mathematics must bow to opinion, to worldview. Perhaps, we are told, two plus two really don’t always equal four. Some cultures might arrive at a different answer. Honestly, this is clear and patent nonsense, and yet, this is coming not from some fringe nutcases, but from our educational sector. But you see, there is objective truth, and feelings cannot alter that truth. Opinions don’t count for much where truth is involved. You either agree with truth and stand in the right or you insist that truth is not what it is and stand in the wrong. Eventually, though it may take awhile, truth will correct your error, and it will probably hurt severely.
You may think I have drifted again, because I’m discussing matters of opinion over against objective truth, but it really is the same issue. Conscience is expressed in opinion, and to some degree shaped by opinion. The two are intimately connected. What you believe shapes your views. Your views reflect your conscience, and your conscience your views. Thus, the opinions you offer in expressing your views are in fact expressions of opinion. It is on this basis that the post-modernist would insist that all views are equally valid, because in the end, they are all formulated on mere opinion. And there, while they sound reasonable, they lose all reasonableness. If all opinions are equally valid, it is only because all opinions are inherently incorrect, in which case we ought give them no attention whatsoever, not formulate our sense of the world around us by their lights. But the thing is, it’s not the possession of an opinion that establishes or disestablishes the validity of that opinion. It is the presence or absence of truth in said opinion.
Let me try and bring this back around to the tension of Word and conscience. The general point here is that the Church must leave the individual at liberty to be guided by conscience. But that was never intended to open a space for opinion to trump clear truth. That was never a permit to let mere supposition supplant the Word of God. There is an underlying supposition that the conscience in view is in fact subjected to God in Christ, is guided by the Word, and as such, what is under discussion is a matter upon which Scripture is able to support more than one perspective without doing violence to the central message of Scripture.
What do I mean by this? The classic example would be the topic of dealing with the food markets in ancient Rome. Were we citizens of that era, you would know and I would know where the meat in the market probably came from. Most of it was sell-off from the local temples, the idolatrous priests trying to earn a bit extra on the side. It may or may not be marked as coming from such and such a temple, but either way, you know that’s probably the case. So what is the good Christian to do? Must we forego meats altogether because there’s the chance it was offered to a false god? Or, being keenly aware that these gods are nothing of significance as our God is the only true God, are we free to eat as we please, even if the goods were marked? You can see why some of these early churches, coming out of and remaining in the midst of such pagan cultures, might reach out to the Apostles for a clear cut, black and white answer on the matter. Surely, there’s a simple rule we can follow here. But no such rule is forthcoming. Indeed, God had already set aside some of what used to seem a clear and simple rule.
Think about Peter at the outset of the gospel expansion. There he was up on the rooftop praying, resting, hungrily awaiting the meal being prepared below. Scripture tells us, “he fell into a trance” (Ac 10:10), as one might well imagine. But in his case, it led to a dream or vision of sorts, in which a sheet was laid on the ground and all manner of creatures arrayed upon it. The brief list of creature types makes clear that here were all sorts of animals declared unclean under Mosaic Law (Ac 10:12). Ah! This is clear enough, it’s a temptation, no doubt brought on by dozing under the sun with the smells of the kitchen rising. But even in this state, Peter is determined to stand on the clear dictates of Scripture. Even when he hears a voice telling him to arise, kill, and eat, he stand firm. And, I should note, he is clear Whose voice he hears. “By no means, Lord! For I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean!” (Ac 10:14). I have to say, how typically Peter! You’d think he might have learned by now. After all, this is pretty much the same response he had when Jesus observed the necessity of His own death and resurrection. Having just confessed rightly that Jesus was in fact the Messiah, and the Son of the living God, he proceeds to utterly reject what Jesus says must transpire. “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to You” (Mt 16:22). Well, here he is again. The Lord, whom he knows with even greater certainty now is in fact God, has spoken, and Peter is ready to reject His words.
Fortunately for Peter, God is patient. He makes His point plain. “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (Ac 10:15). Ah, I see. And so, in his dream, although it took three repetitions for the message to sink in, the vision faded, the great picnic blanket was taken up into the sky. Actually, it’s not clear that Peter really did see yet. It seems not, for he remained ‘greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be’ (Ac 10:16). But that was made clear soon enough when he met the messengers sent by Cornelius the centurion.
So, the Gentiles are given entrance to the kingdom. Got it. But to that point it had seemed entirely clear-cut that they were not. Mind you, that was a clear-cut failure to understand what was there already in the pages of Scripture, but still, it seemed a clear enough line of demarcation. This side is holy. That side is not. So, too, with food more generally. Were these things now truly acceptable to eat? Hard enough, I should think, for a well-trained Jew of the Pharisaic age to contemplate coming to table with a Gentile, let alone partaking of such things as this.
Paul, given his focus in ministry, had to deal with a slightly different variation on this dilemma. Here were a people drawn out of age-old idolatry. Unlike the Jews, they had not had centuries steeped in Biblical worldview, but were coming to it later in life, with the habits of a lifetime and more already internalized. We see the tension of it play out in Corinth. Oh, we’re new creatures in Christ Jesus, and we fully embrace the liberty that has come to us in faith. But that liberty was being used to excuse old predilections. Set aside the sexual deviancy that was being tolerated in some individuals. That, at least, was a clear-cut case, and those who were accepting the like were plainly and roundly rebuked. But what of idol feasts? Again, these idols are nothing, and the food is not somehow rendered unholy, is it? So, why not go and eat and enjoy the party?
Well, Paul does draw a line of sorts. “I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1Co 10:20-21). The first thing needed here was for these newer believers to recognize the distinction between simply eating and active participation in what was, whether they pursued it as such in conscience, an idolatrous service of worship. You can’t participate in that and not be participating in the worship. That is the message here. I’ll grant you that all things are lawful, but not all things are a good idea or beneficial to your soul (1Co 10:23).
What’s interesting is the reason provided. It’s a question of concern for your fellow worshiper of Christ. Perhaps he is not as fully developed in his understanding of liberty as you are. Perhaps he has a weak conscience on such matters, and his faith would be sorely tried, perhaps even ruined, to see you taking part in such things – you whom he looks up to as a role model (1Co 10:24). He proceeds to the grayer area of the market. “Eat anything that is sold in the meat market, without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the LORD’s, and all it contains. If an unbeliever invites you, and you choose to go, eat what is set before you without questions for conscience’ sake. But… if anyone should say to you, ‘This is meat sacrificed to idols,’ do not eat, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?” (1Co 10:25-29).
You see, then, that Paul has brought us right to that place of tension. The conscience subdued and submitted to Christ is at liberty. There is nothing inherently wrong in partaking of the food. The food is not sinful, for it is the Lord’s, whatever man has thought to make of it along the way. No, the conscience in question is that of the other person. This is a matter of, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Think more of others, and less of you. The unbeliever happily informing you of his idolatry needs a reason to leave idolatry behind. He doesn’t need to be encouraged in continuing his fall. Your neighbor’s good is not served by leaving him to his sins. But you see as well that what Paul is doing is shaping the conscience of the believer to be a sound guide through life, by training it to the principles of the Word.
If we look to the letter to Rome, we find multiple examples of an appeal to the testimony of conscience. In regard to the Gentiles, while not having the Law, are a law unto themselves. What is meant? “in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus” (Ro 2:15-16). Observe the connection. The conscience which is a reliable witness is guided by the Law of God, albeit in this case, written on their hearts.
Later, as he explores the question of his countrymen and their place in this new covenant order, he assures, “I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart” (Ro 9:1). I am struck by two points here. The first is that the reliability of conscience is directly connected to its being informed by the Holy Spirit. The second observation I make is that it requires that assurance of a Spirit-informed conscience to trust what comes from the heart. Paul’s conscience bearing witness does not do anything to bolster his argument to these readers who know him only by reputation. This is not for them. This is for Paul. He knows better than to trust the feelings of a deceitful heart. He knows how quickly the full-formed thoughts of the mind can mislead to dire effect. This is Paul who was Saul, the persecutor of the Church. To be sure, he was fully assured in conscience at the time that he was on the side of righteousness. Conscience alone was insufficient to ensure Truth and holiness. It wasn’t until said conscience was informed by the Holy Spirit, and only so long as said conscience remains informed by the Holy Spirit that it can be taken as any sort of reliable guide.
[08/13/20]
The larger message also addresses the smaller details. Some, as observed before, were avoiding meats altogether so as to avoid any possibility of accidentally eating something offered to idols. Others recognized their liberty as allowing them to partake of meat without issue, hopefully with those caveats noted in the letter to Corinth. So, who is right? Where’s our black and white rule, lest we sin? Interestingly, it has next to nothing to do with the question of what’s suitable for eating. “Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him” (Ro 14:3). The same principle is observed in regard to holy days. Here, we must presume the days in question are the feast days of the Old Covenant, and not participation in the pagan rites of some idol or other. In a church composed from Jew and Gentile, one can see where there would be questions about who is right. Do we continue the feast schedule, or is that done away? But again, the hard and fast line has nothing particular to do with feasts “Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thank to God” (Ro 14:5b-6). The real question is, “Why do you judge your brother or hold him in contempt” (Ro 14:10)? Here’s the general principle. “Nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died” (Ro 14:14b-15).
Do you see the dual instruction here? As to your own walk, be guided by conscience, by what you think. If you hold the conviction that such and such an activity would be ungodly, then don’t do it. To do what you are convinced is unholy is by very definition sin. Whatever the action being considered, it is not the action itself that is the sin. It is the willful pursuit of what you are convinced is sinful that is the sin. It is the flagrant determination to act against your best understanding of God’s wishes. Now it may very well be that with a maturing of faith, you will come to see those same actions in a different light, and see them as wholly permissible, and quite devoid of sinfulness. If that should happen, then at that point you are assuredly free to pursue those same actions which were to you previously a sin.
I must stress, however, the bounding assumption in this instruction, and that is that the deed contemplated is not in clear and obvious violation of true holiness. Sexual sins, for example, whether sex outside of wedlock, or between prohibited pairings, cannot be rendered sinless by any bending of conscience. Bearing false witness cannot be rendered sinless however the mind may contrive to paint it in an acceptable light. Murder, theft, etc., cannot be thought into a place of acceptability. I could note that we are seeing just such an effort unfold, although without much thought for God and righteousness. But the point is equally valid in that setting. Make however lofty a claim as to the reasons for your theft, and it remains theft. It remains violence done against another human being, another bearer of God’s image. At this point, appeals to conscience are to no avail.
But the sorts of questions arising from Paul’s examples are matters for polite disagreement. They are truly matters of conscience. There’s no harm done in the deed contemplated, but for some, the contemplating of the deed and pursuing of the same is indeed a sin because they are not convinced otherwise. Here’s the message, then: We are to be guided by conscience, and to leave our fellows room to do likewise, but only insofar as conscience is guided by the clear precepts of holiness given to us in the Word. If it is the case that conscience dictates what the Word forbids, then by no means are we still free to pursue the dictates of conscience.
I said, though, that there is dual instruction in these verses. There is also a boundary set for the one who feels no compunction with doing what Word-guided conscience permits. There, the message is that your conscience admitting the acceptability of the deed is not enough in and of itself, even where you have the full support of the revealed Word of God. If, by pursuing what you find permissible, you cause conflicting thoughts in a brother who sees things differently, then you ought to willingly forego your liberty out of concern for his conscience. If you become an instrumental cause in leading him to act against his own conscience, then you are aiding and abetting sin, and you are sinning in your own right, because you have thus violated the law of Love.
What does this look like in practice? Let us take some relatively benign examples. One may feel perfectly at ease with enjoying a glass of wine or beer or some such of an evening – not to the point of drunkenness and debauchery, but perhaps a glass at meal. Others may, whether due to past problems or simply conviction as to the propriety of such things for the Christian, insist on full abstinence. I don’t need to consider the prohibitionist sort here, but only those who would never consider doing such a thing themselves for the reasons laid out above: They consider it sinful and forbidden, at least to them. They may be so enlightened as to accept that their brother may think otherwise, and be guided by the principles of this passage to avoid judging. But still, to be in the presence of Christians with drink must prove a tension to them, a challenge. Peer pressure is no less powerful for the believer. He may feel compelled to go with the flow, to partake in spite of misgivings. You, as the one who partakes have a responsibility to your brother, and that responsibility insists that you not put him in such a spot. It does you no harm to forego your liberty. Your rights are not impinged, for it is something you undertake to do – or not do in this case – willingly, for love of your brother. And in doing so, you fulfill the only real black and white law at play here: The law of Love. You have considered others as more important than yourself. You have, following the clear model of your Lord, willingly set aside your prerogatives for the sake of your brother.
Smoking might be another example, although I suppose not so much as it once was. If you consider it unhealthy, that’s one thing, and certainly reason enough to do all you can to get clear of it and stay clear of it. But if you deem it sinful, then it assuredly is sinful to continue smoking. If, on the other hand, you recognize a liberty to smoke or not as you see fit, then please feel free. It is not expressly forbidden and sinful by any clear dictate of Scripture that we’re going to find. But if you insist on your right to smoke even when with brothers or sisters that you know find it sinful and may, for all you know, also find it terribly tempting, your rights do not trump the demands of love. Refrain. You will have time enough for your pleasures when you are alone, or with like-minded company in no danger of harming the conscience of those who think differently. At the same time, you who have rejected smoking, whether lifelong or the hard act of quitting a long-held habit, this is no permit to become a harridan of health on the matter. Don’t think to scold or belittle the one who smokes as an ungodly sinner, or a carnal believer, or any such thing. Your conscience is rightly binding on your own decisions, but it is not at all binding on anybody else.
What I conclude from all this is that there is no real tension between Word and conscience, at least not within the bounds of holiness. If Word and conscience are at odds, then Word must prevail if holiness is the goal. The tension is really between conscience and conscience. It is the legalistic tendency of sinful man, even in this redeemed state, to impose opinion as rule for others. If I might put it in more current parlance, it’s a demanding of rights, and particularly of such rights as are effectively being conjured out of thin air. In the scope of Christian religion, we do bound this by the Word of God. The Word of God is binding upon conscience, and must guide the decisions, teaching, and action of the Christian Church, bowing to no other law. But within the bounds of the Word, where there is disagreement, we must not seek to bind another by our conscience, nor are we to bind ourselves by another’s conscience. And through all of this, we are to be guided by the Law of Love, which is the clearest boundary of the Word. “Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification” (Ro 15:1-2). Seek that which will aid your brother’s growth, build him up. Don’t act so as to tear him down. For he, too, is the temple of God. In that light, what you do to him, you do to the temple. What you do to the temple, you do to God.
