peace . love . joy

A couple of weeks ago, I had my Bible study group over in my house and we were discussing the issue of Christian conduct. Back and forth the ideas and comments and views came about how we should go about deciphering and living out the verses on "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial" (1 Cor 10:23), on the problem of "what-if"s in stumbling other believers with our particular behaviors expounded with accompanying concrete examples of grey area subjects like drinking alcohol, tattooing, and even dancing (from hip-hop to tango), for it is not good to cause others to sin (Mark 9:42).

If we draw out the tangent that we should not live lives that are full of actions that stumble others, if we do not know who is watching us when we do what we do, and we do not know if what we do is stumbling whoever is watching, then should we renounce our present lives and live ascetic lives in convents and monasteries as nuns and monks?

See, our problem lies not with clear black and whites of right and wrong as spelt out in God's Word; rather, we take issue with issues coloured in grey hues. Amoral, or non-moral if you prefer, behaviours and actions which are in and of themselves neither right nor wrong. These do not involve sin, and therefore morality. There are many that may be not wrong, but also not advisable, as there are many that are not wrong for some, but also not right for others.

The question is:
What do we do when we face such circumstances where there are such disputes?
How do we negotiate such knowledge that one thing may seem okay for us, but simultaneously utterly incorrect for others?

While I do not dare to offer a clear and concise answer, I believe Romans 14 may help us manoeuvre through these grey waters.

In the first section of the chapter, Paul differentiates between the "stronger" and the "weaker" Christian ("weaker" not in Faith; but rather as C. E. B. Cranfield puts it, "in assurance that one's faith permits one to do certain things"). He chooses food as the amoral issue, for it is neither wrong nor right to abstain as it is to not abstain.

The "stronger" who eats anything and everything he wishes must not look down on the "weaker" who abstains from certain foods, just as the "weaker" is not to judge nor condemn the "stronger".

Neither should judge himself more acceptable or pleasing to God than the other on basis of his amoral actions alone.

And here's the reason why:
It is not our place to pass judgement on another, just as it is not a servant's place to condemn another servant; each servant is answerable to his master.

The "weaker" must not judge the "stronger" because God in His grace has made it possible for the "stronger" to eat as he wishes; the servant is allowed to stand before his Master; his liberty is approved by the Sovereign.

Paul moves on to talk about an instance when the "weaker" does something the "stronger" does not (as opposed to before when the "stronger" does something the "weaker" does not). And again as before, Paul pays no attention to the reason why that particular action is committed. Such reasoning to him is immaterial because such personal convictions are simply that: personal, between one man and God.

And it is because:
What matters is that each lives to please the LORD in his own capacity by his own convictions.
What matters is that each confesses and submits to Jesus the Christ, to God the Father, and to the Holy Spirit's engineering.
We do not live to ourselves, neither do we die to ourselves. Each will be subjected to the LORD's judgement on Judgement Day; each will be held accountable for his own actions; we do not have to answer for anyone else but ourselves.

So really, the question is how intimate are we with the LORD?
Do our lives reflect that intimacy, that relationship?

Verses 1 through 12 were perhaps written with the "weaker" brother in particular in mind. But verses 13 through 23 were written with the other "stronger" believer taking centre stage.

Is the "stronger" Christian's behavior a stumbling block to the "weaker"?

In Greek, "stumbling block" has two main translations:
πρόσκομμα (proskomma) which means an object that a foot may be stubbed against.
or σκάνδαλον (skandalon) which is the English "snare".

Are the actions of the "stronger" retarding the "weaker"'s progress to Christ-likeness, hindering his path or even permanently damaging the "weaker"'s conscience and sensitivities?
Are they temptations to sin to the "weaker" brother?

"Stronger", take heed especially! "For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died." (v. 15)
Which is more important:
Your liberty to act and behave in amoral situations as you do because you understand what Christ has done for you and are fully assured in faith?
Or the safe-keeping and encouraging of the soul of a fellow brother?

See, the big picture is not that we have a right as "stronger" Christians, ransomed and redeemed by God, to live in utter liberty. No, it has nothing to do with how we act with respect to amoral issues. What we have to keep in mind, always in plain sight is the Kingdom of God which "is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (v. 17)

Rather than letting ourselves at each other's throats and tearing down the walls of each other's faith in conviction (not so much Faith in Christian teaching), seek to live in peace with one another: build up and encourage each other in our walks with our wonderful merciful Savior.

For the "stronger", it may spell foregoing some amoral behaviors and actions.
For the "weaker", it may mean refraining from conferring condemning judement on the practices of the "stronger" brother.