This is the post I've been promising regarding a chapter that I think is too often overlooked and gives insight on how to diplomatically handle problems that arise between belief systems in the church.
Romans 14
Now, first I'd like to provide a bit of background. In Romans 13, Paul admonishes people to be loving toward one another. He says "The commandments [...] are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Romans 13:9, NIV). He then goes on to say that we especially need to do this because the end of time gets closer every day. Then in Romans 14 he presents how to show love to those whose faiths are weak and strong. Then in Romans 15 he goes on to say that the strong should try to give their strength to the weak, for the benefit of the weak rather than for the pleasure of the strong.
All of this seems to be to make this point: that we must be gentle with other Christians and try to love and support them. In a modern skyscraper, the steal beams are all necessary to keep the structure upright. If one beam takes damage, the other beams carry the load to keep the building from collapsing. Otherwise, the beams spread the load out amongst the entire support so that they don't take too much stress. This is the idea behind the song "Lean on Me," and I'd especially like to point out the following lines:
If there is a load you have to bear
That you can't carry
I'm right up the road, I'll share your load
if you just call me
(From "Lean on Me" by Bill Withers)
When we love each other, as Christians are meant to do, we are supposed to support each other.
Unfortunately, too often our first intent seems to be to judge those we see as having sin. In a church, if it is discovered that one of the members of the church was a sex offender, the likely response of the other members of the church is to expel him, regardless of what offense, how long ago it occurred, etc. When challenged by the quote "'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her'" (John 8:7, KJV), many church members seem to say "well, of course I have sin, but at least I didn't do THAT." They believe that it is necessary to prune the branches from time to time in order to get a well-formed tree. While this is true, gardeners have to know which branches to cut and how to cut them properly to encourage growth. The members of a congregation who tend to do the pruning are those who whisper gossip to each other about a man's sins, failing to realize the irony of using gossip to relay the sin. Additionally, because it's based on gossip, the church members learn sordid and inaccurate details about the sin through rumor and speculation, and the problem becomes multiplied.
It was exactly this kind of mentality that Paul is writing to. In Romans 14, he made several key points:
#1) "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters" (Romans 14:1, NIV).
Paul goes on to describe a scenario regarding vegetarians and meat-eaters, but the very first line of the paragraph is his main point. Later, he says "Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way" (Romans 14:13, NIV). The point of this first section is that we have enough problems just dealing with our sins, we don't need additional problems dealing with our church. Brothers and Sisters in Christ should be supporting each other rather than attacking each other. God alone gets to decide someone's eternal fate; our goal as Christians should be to give every Christian the best possible chance.
#2) "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:22-23, NIV).
The point of this passage is as follows: If you have a set of beliefs that other people in the Church do not share, you must be absolutely certain about them. Any doubts at all are an indication of sin. In Paul's example: if you think that it's acceptable to eat meat, but you think that there's a small chance that God doesn't approve of eating meat, then you shouldn't do it. Regardless of how small the chance is, there is that chance. Sin is a separation from God. If you do something knowing that it could separate you from God, then you show yourself to be accepting of that separation. Thus, you are sinning. However, in the same example, a man could be completely convinced that eating meat is not a sin (I have no doubts about it myself, for instance). For him, it's not a sin then. It's one of Paul's "disputable matters." Someone who doesn't feel he can eat meat shouldn't be mad at the person who does, for both viewpoints can be fully logical interpretations of the Bible.
Taking this to other areas: the Southern Baptist church believes that dancing is a sin. For them, it is a "vertical expression of horizontal desire". I can frankly see their point, especially in modern "bump and grind" style dancing or in dancing moves out of the movie "Dirty Dancing." However, dancing itself is not the act of sex, so the sin within it must be the desire it creates. The question comes down to this: if dancing has the potential to cause lust, does it cause lust in everyone? If the answer is yes, as the Baptists seem to believe, then it is a sin for everyone. If the answer is no, it's still a sin for anyone in whom it does cause lust.
For myself, I've never experienced lust from dancing. Then again, I don't have a clue what I'm doing and so I spend all of my thoughts on trying to just make sure I don't screw up. Even with the aforementioned "bump and grind" - I once had a very attractive girl, who I was frankly interested in, drag me onto the dance floor and attempt to dance that way with me. Again, I had absolutely no clue what I was doing, and being a good little Christian boy, I found her dancing to be embarrassing rather than sexual. My only thought was "how do I politely tell her that I'm not comfortable with this?" I obviously failed, as after that night I've never seen her again. Perhaps that's for the best. But the point remains that during this entire event, I did not have sexual thoughts (not for lack of effort, mind you - I wasn't *that* good of a Christian boy), but simply because the dancing didn't inherently force them upon me.
So for me, dancing is not a sin. For others, however, it may well be.
#3)"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall" (Romans 14:20-21, NIV).
Remember that the entire point of this section has been how to help the weak be strong. If someone has a weakness in a particular area, those who do not share that weakness should be sensitive of it regardless. If, for instance, a church were to have a wild and crazy party, and dancing were to spontaneously break out at that party, someone who feels lust when dancing may feel pressured by the group to get out on the dance floor. Thus, this person begins dancing, and begins lusting, and the whole experience causes him or her to be weakened.
However, there are far too many things in the world that can cause a person to sin. It's impossible to prevent all of them. This is part of the reason why we need our Church to be a place we can be completely open with each other. If I go into a church right now, and tell them that I have a problem with lust when I see a woman with a short skirt on (which is true - learned something you didn't want to know about me just now I bet), they would likely not provide any support. Church the way it should be done would have the women ceasing to wear short skirts until such a time as I could overcome that desire, so that I would not be weakened during worship. But if I don't say anything about it, no rational person would have any reason to suspect a problem, and thus I can only be weakened.
#4) "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean" (Romans 14:14, NIV).
This is perhaps the most difficult and abused part of the entire chapter. "No food" could also be translated "nothing" - which means that nothing in the entire world is inherently evil. Wow. Alcohol is not inherently evil. Cocaine is not inherently evil. Guns are not inherently evil. Nothing is. This concept has opened up a whole slew of possible arguments, some of which may be completely wrong, but those arguments do find a seeming champion in this passage:
Premarital sex
Extramarital sex (including orgies)
Homosexuality
Abortion
Suicide
Self-Mutilation
And the list goes on. Basically, anything that could be traditionally considered sinful can be argued in favor of with this passage.
However, Paul provides the test in item #2, that you must be absolutely certain about your beliefs. Everything we do should in some way bring glory to God. If premarital and extramarital sex can bring glory to God (and there are some who say "yes," though I am not among them), and a person can believe in it without having any doubts, then for that person it is not a sin. However, we should strongly question anything that seems so antithetical to Biblical teachings. There are many indications in the Bible of such fornication being sinful, so how could a person believe these things? Still, if someone can believe without doubt that what they're doing is right and good, at least according to this interpretation of this passage, it would be fine.
There comes a bit of difficulty when dealing with things like murder, rape, and other violent assaults. There have been indications in the past of people committing serial murders because they believe they are serving the will of God. "Boondock Saints" is a movie about this very idea. Surely it is still evil for people to commit these acts, even if they have no doubts about them.
How to resolve this? I don't at this time have an opinion formed. In my heart, I say that "nothing" must not literally mean nothing, meaning there are still sins regardless of the person's intent and beliefs who is doing them. But that's not what it says. So, for the commentary section I'll leave open this question: how do you interpret Romans 14:14?
Sphere: Related Content
4 comments:
It's well summed-up in the Augustinian: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
There is a standard to believe in order to be Christian and biblical.
Rom 14 refers to things that are not intrinsically wrong but which violate the consciences of some weaker brothers. Thus, "if I, by eating meat, destroy my brother, I will never eat meat again." Parallel psg in 1 Cor 8 is relevant as well.
But this is for things that are not sinful in and of themselves. Homosexuality is. Abortion is. Blaspheming Jesus is. Eating meat is not - Jesus Himself said so in Mark 7. So that's the key to understanding this.
Peace,
Rhology
If it were that simple, there would be no point to the passage. In Mark 7, Jesus said that it wasn't a sin to eat food that had been traditionally considered "unclean," but He didn't say that meat was not sinful. Some people consider (and there is reference to this in the early parts of the Old Testament) that eating meat is sin because it requires the murder of the animal. Plants were what were provided for our food. Ergo, Jesus never said "no, it's not sinful to eat meat" but rather was giving a dissertation on the nature of sin.
What I'm trying to say is this: some people could still consider the eating of meat to be a sin. Which is to say that you can't simply say "Eating meat is not." For you it's not. For someone else, it may be. That's what Paul is getting at.
But where is the line drawn? The only time I can find where Christ specifically labels something as sin (rather than addressing issues in a round-about way, which I'll discuss in a moment):
"But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mark 3:29).
The question becomes: what is blaspheme? It seems odd that anyone would take the Holy Spirit's name in vain, but people have described blaspheme in different ways over the years. The Jews believe that blaspheme is any kind of disrespect, which could include writing or saying the name. I have heard some religious scholars say that we blaspheme the Holy Spirit only when we ignore it - that is to say, if the Spirit is speaking to us and we don't listen because we want too much to sin. If that were the case, then I would already be condemned and I might as well live as sinful a life as I would like. But I'd like to believe that that is not the case. Some other scholars say that it is a life-long issue - that you blaspheme against the Spirit if you never turn from your wicked ways. But if that were the case, does it really need to be said that such a person cannot be forgiven? After all, they die still having sinned which they haven't ever repented of, ergo they must surely not be forgiven regardless.
My point with all of the above is that even this one single sinful act has no easy answer, and it's the most dangerous one in the whole of existence as it is the only one that cannot be forgiven! Considering that, other sins don't have a chance.
There's always the "well is it a sin to do it in this case..." arguments. Is it a sin to murder? Yes. Is it a sin to kill someone when at war? Some say no. But if it is not a sin to kill when at war, couldn't you claim to have a war of one versus one? Or better still, what about killing in self defense? Some would argue this is ok, but isn't killing someone who is trying to kill you like saying your life is more important than theirs? Is that a loving act? Wouldn't a Christian simply lay down his life against his killer, knowing that his own death would be avenged by God and that he would be able to enter Heaven that much more quickly?
All of sin is like this. I think perhaps this is what Paul is getting at. There is too much gray area surrounding sin, but it can all be solved by one simple fact-finding mission: are you absolutely certain that what you're doing is not sinful? If you aren't, then you're sinning regardless of what you might try to argue to yourself about what the Bible says regarding the action you're taking.
Gamelot,
You're subjectivising the text too much.
There is that element to it, but sin is an objective breaking of an objective law.
You can't find where Christ talks about sin?
How about Matt 5-7 where He talks about it all the time? Hatred, anger, adultery, looking with lust, false teachers, false prophets.
There's His discourse on the marks of true believers who visited Him in prison, fed Him, etc, and the lost who didn't do those things.
There's His frequent calls to "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." "I tell you the truth: unless you repent you too will likewise perish."
He came to die for sin. He came to call us to stop sinning.
Jesus DOES say eating meat is NOT sinful.
I don't, indeed can't, believe that you looked at the relevant psg - it's impossible to miss.
Mark 7:
14After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand:
15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.
16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."]
17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable.
18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
20And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man..."
Eating meat is not sinful b/c it requires the death of the animal. Otherwise Christ would have said that. He wouldn't have eaten the Passover Lamb at the Last Supper, etc. That's just bizarre. There is no reason to screw up the proper understanding of the teaching of the BIble just b/c some people get it fantastically wrong.
Jesus' discussion of the nature of sin INCLUDES the teaching on food, since that was His illustration.
But you're right - if a BELIEVER thinks eating meat is a sin, then I'll never eat meat around him, for that would sinful.
He also has the responsibility to grow in Christ and realise that eating meat is NOT a sin - that is part of his sanctification and the transformation of his mind and heart.
So for him it would be a sin b/c it sticks in his conscience. For me it's not, but if I'm around him and it sticks in his conscience, then I'm sinning if I do it.
OTOH, whether it sticks in his conscience or not to get a prostitute pregnant and then pay to abort her baby, it is objectively sinful b/c such disgusting things are countermanded elsewhere in Scr. Eating meat is natural; sexual immorality and murder are not.
The blasph of the HS - you will agree at least that it's a sin, right? Does it matter whether it bothers the conscience or not? If it doesn't, is it still sinful?
About war, again, if you kill an enemy soldier while at war, it's not a sin if the war is a just war. But there are ways to murder while at war; shooting an unarmed prisoner or starving him is one way. We just have to apply the biblical interp principles consistently to know. Subjectivising it too much is far too dangerous a game to play with such an important question as sin.
Peace,
Rhology
>"You're subjectivising the text too much."
How much should I subjectivise it? Seriously, that's a question that always seems to divide the church. If I say I want to interpret the first chapter of Genesis as taking place not in literal 7-days, I'm seen as being too subjective, but at the same time if I were to say that women should have to wear hats on their heads (Paul said they did), then I'm being too literal. The fact of the matter is that people interpret the Scriptures in different ways, some finding some things to be literal, and others finding them to be figurative. The overriding point I'm trying to make is that these differences of opinion can still be held together with a proper view of Romans 14 and how it says we should interact with other Christians.
>"Jesus DOES say eating meat is NOT sinful."
Jesus says it doesn't make you unclean. That's not literally Him saying "It's not sinful." It's your interpretation that it's not sinful, but other people could interpret it differently. Someone else could interpret it to say "Well it's still a sin, but doing it won't make me unclean. Unclean means I can't even live in town, I certainly can't go to church, etc."
>"Eating meat is natural; sexual immorality and murder are not."
Eating meat is natural *for you*. Someone from India would disagree. Again, sexual immorality was completely natural in the ancient Roman world that Paul was often preaching to.
Something is a sin because it causes us to be separated from God. That's one of the key points of Romans 14: the concept that if you do something despite the fact that it may cause a rift between you and God, that's as good as accepting that rift, and it in turn creates the rift.
But different things create rifts for different people, sometimes regardless of the scripture. Take nudity for example. Nowhere in the text does it say "thou shalt not be naked around people of the opposite sex, except doctors and spouses." Yet for 80% of American Christians, nakedness is the 8th deadly sin. Yet in Europe, even those parts that are not under Catholicism, the attitude is completely different. Christians will go to a nude beach and even be nude without a second thought.
One of the greatest Christian women I've ever known brought me back a story about Europe. She went on a mission trip to Romania, where they stayed for months preaching the Word. Many of the Romanian people were Catholic, many more were Russian Orthodox, and still there were plenty of Muslims and others. The mission group was preaching Protestantism. They stayed in a hostel at one point for several weeks, and in this hostel (as is common in Romania), there was only a single shower room with multiple shower heads. There was absolutely no privacy and, as others were sharing the hostel as well, no way for the group to specify that certain times were for women only, other times were for men only. My friend ultimately had to bite the bullet and shower without regard for the gender of the people in the shower room, and she learned very quickly that there was nothing sinful to it - people were simply showering, chatting with each other, and going about their business as though nothing was different. For the Romanian people who were used to this situation, nothing was different.
But I'm sure you will tell me that the Bible says that nudity is shameful. My response would simply be this: sure it's shameful if you're flaunting your body or if you're naked because you can't afford clothes (the two situations where it was described as shameful in the Bible), but that's it. The 1st century church, probably including Jesus, were all baptised naked because people didn't have swimsuits. Public baths were common in Corinth, yet Paul never told people to stop going to them.
The point is this: unless the Bible says "this is sinful," the wording of the Bible is open to interpretation. The only thing that specifically uses the X = Sin equation is Blasphemy of the Spirit. Other things use other phrases, like "shameful." I personally would agree that any time someone says "stay away from sexual immorality, etc" that the list included there is sinful and I shouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean everyone will have the same interpretation I will.
>"The blasph of the HS - you will agree at least that it's a sin, right? Does it matter whether it bothers the conscience or not? If it doesn't, is it still sinful?"
Yes, though I also think we often misinterpret what Blasphemy of the Spirit is. But absolutely, I think that's evil, because it's layed out in clear detail "This is evil." There are times when there can be no alternative interpretation.
Post a Comment