Adding to the Noise: 3 principles to remember concerning Christian liberty

Frankly, I've grown weary of arguments over Christian liberties.  And frankly, I hate to be contributing to the noise with this post.  However, in the time I've spent studying the issue, there have been three important principles that have consistently jumped out of the Scriptures at me -- three principles, I would argue, that most arguments miss.  This is problematic, because I believe these are the three most crucial elements to consider when it comes to choosing a stance on a particular liberty.

For this post, I'll predominantly be using the example of alcohol as representative of all liberties -- partly because it seems to be the most prevalently debated amongst Christians, and partly because it's a freedom in which I personally engage.  However, this post is not a defense of alcohol, and it is not a treatise on my personal approach to practicing the liberty.  Neither of those conversations are even remotely beneficial in an internet setting.  What I am writing about is the crux of Paul's whole argument in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10.  The principles he outlines in these passages should inform the way we operate, whether we engage in a liberty or abstain from it.

1. I should be willing to engage in reasonable dialogue about the practice of a liberty.

The reason why I'm writing this post, and the reason that all of Christendom vocalizes its opinions on this topic, is because there is room for disagreement.  There is room for various walks of life, various cultural and personal biases, and various personal applications.  There is no one right way to exercise liberty as far as when, how, where, and why are concerned.

Paul writes, "Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.  Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?  It is before his own master that he stands or falls."  In other words, it is ultimately to God alone that I must give an account of my decisions, not to another believer (14.12).  However, because there is room for differences of opinion, I should be willing to explain my choice to practice or abstain from drinking to anyone who might broach the topic.  Conversely, I should also be willing to listen to and understand someone else's point of view on the matter.

This type of reasonable dialogue can take the form of confrontation: "Hey, I saw that you had a drink and I'm just concerned about your testimony."

Reasonable dialogue can also take the form of conversational curiosity: "Hey, I come from a background where drinking isn't allowed, and I'm just wondering how you handle drinking as a believer?"

In either regard, we have the opportunity to give a reason for our choice in the matter, as well as provide encouragement to someone who might be wrestling through their own personal understanding of the issue.  The undergirding aspects of this principle are that we should be considerate of where other believers' convictions land on the matter, and that we should be willing to engage with them even if their opinion is in opposition to our own.  After all, the "weaker brother" whom Paul describes in these passages is not the one who abstains from alcohol.  As a matter of fact, the one who abstains can have a perfectly good, Scripturally-based reason for his or her decision, just as an individual who engages can give biblical principles to support his or her choice.  For the individual who believes he/she personally should not engage in drinking, to have a beer would be to legitimately offend their personal faith concerning that liberty.  By contrast, the "weaker brother" is the individual who doesn't have a fully developed understanding, or the one who would judge another person for their practice or abstention from a liberty.  There is room, Paul writes, for different perspectives.  However, they must be informed perspectives, and they must be personal perspectives -- not abrasive opinions that should blanket the whole body of Christ.

Furthermore, the goal of engaging in reasonable dialogue should never be to "convert" the other individual to your point of view.  The goal should be a). to give a defensible (not defensive) reason for your practice, and b). assist the other individual in understanding the topic from a different perspective.  Maybe you yourself have some underdeveloped notions concerning the liberty in question and can garner a deeper appreciation for another individual's personal convictions.  Ultimately, reasonable dialogue should be as much an exercise in personal humility as it is an opportunity to instruct a weaker brother or sister.

2. I should be willing to abstain from my "right" to practice a liberty.

Most arguments for the acceptability of drinking are defensive.  I've yet to find one that doesn't spend the bulk of its far-too-wordy text explaining why alcohol is a morally neutral object and that God gave wine to "gladden the hearts of men," and therefore everyone should be willing to give up their ultra-conservative viewpoints on the topic because -- after all -- this is the modern era.

Paul addresses the issue this way: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean."  In other words, the issue is not whether or not alcohol itself is acceptable, but whether or not an individual's faith is strong enough for him or her to engage in the practice of that particular liberty.  It's all about caution and careful, prayerful consideration, because the one who doubts is "condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith... [and] whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."

Knowing this -- that to engage in drinking with a weak conscience is a sin  -- then not only should we carefully consider our personal practice of a liberty, but we should also be willing to abstain if someone who is weak in their understanding is present.  Paul says, "Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother."  In other words, I have three choices available to me in the moment I sit down at the reception, across the table from someone who doesn't share my opinion that alcohol is acceptable: a). be considerate of their possibly weak conscience and abstain, b). engage openly with careful explanation, or c). be judgmental and partake regardless of the other individual's stance.

Obviously, one of those options is not glorifying to God.  While option "b" probably strikes most people as perfectly reasonable and constructive, I'm convinced that Paul is arguing for the first approach in any instance of reasonable doubt.  While there may be times that option "b" is appropriate, we should always prioritize consideration for others above serving self.

The practice of a liberty is never simply about my "right" to exercise it.  In fact, I even hate calling it a "right" for that reason, because we owe the pleasure of a liberty to the Savior who has redeemed all things.  Therefore, the practice of a liberty should always be about mutual enjoyment and mutual edification, never lighthearted or thoughtless revelry, and always an opportunity to prefer the needs of others above our own (1 Cor 10.24; Phil 2.4).  We should never insist on our "right" to engage in a liberty, because the moment it becomes a "right" I deserve, it also becomes an idol.

Certainly, this conversation looks a little different when it comes to an individual operating under a legalistic mindset -- in other words, a mindset that would enforce a personal conviction on other people: "I believe the consumption of alcohol is always wrong and there is never a good reason to drink.  Therefore, everyone should think this way."  The legalistic mindset forces its personal preference upon other individuals, and while they may have noble intent -- to protect other believers from stumbling -- it is not appropriate to attribute a personal conviction a type of law that all should adopt.  After all, while "everything is indeed clean," it is "wrong for anyone to make another stumble", whether by what he drinks or doesn't drink (14.20).  However, even in the occasion where I rub up against this type of misinformed position, I should still be willing to abstain if a). my practice of liberty in that individual's presence is going to cause an argument (notice earlier I said reasonable dialogue), and if b). my desire to drink is more about a "proving them wrong" or changing his or her mind on the topic than it is to simply enjoy my "right" to engage in that particular liberty.

For that matter, we should also be willing to abstain in the presence of individuals who take their liberty too far.  Rather than encourage them in their wanton abuse of a so-called gray area, we should be willing to abstain in order to differentiate our choice from theirs, as well as to engage with them in reasonable dialogue that might bring them to a deeper understanding of what purpose Christian liberty actually serves.

In any of these instances, abstention is not a permanent life change, but a decision to suspend my "right" in order to encourage, prefer, or possibly even confront an individual whose opinion does not line up with my own.

3. I should be fully convinced of my own stance.

Paul writes, "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

The bottom line, Paul argues, is not about which side of the fence we happen to fall on, but which side of the fence we choose to be on.  In other words, there should be deliberation involved in the practice of or abstention from a liberty.  We should never engage just because others are doing it, just because it's fun, or just because it's a "liberty" -- an available option.  We should abstain if we don't have a solid opinion on the matter, if our conviction is strongly against the practice, or if there is a history of abuse in our personal or familial history.  Reasons abound in favor of either viewpoint -- some biblical, some personal.  Both are legitimate factors when it comes to this discussion.  Whichever side of the fence we choose, we should seek the wisdom of the Scriptures and godly individuals in order to formulate a defensible (not defensive) stance toward a given liberty.  Whether we choose to engage or abstain, we should have a thorough reason for our choice.  Each should be fully convinced in his own mind.

As stated earlier, the "weaker brother" is not someone who holds the opposite opinion.  The "weaker brother" is not the individual who doesn't drink, and the "stronger brother" is not the one who does.  It's not a matter of capability or choice, because -- according to the Apostle Paul -- both opinions are equally viable if they are held because the individuals better glorify God as a result of their respective choices.  The "weaker brother" is the one who simply has no opinion, who doesn't know how to handle a liberty, or who would impose his or her practice/abstention on other believers.  The bottom line is that we should be fully convinced of our personal stance on the issue -- still teachable, certainly, but informed and wise in our approach to exercise or abstention

There are plenty of other things I could discuss under this topic -- things like responsible practice, or how much is too much -- but I believe those issues are covered under these three principles.  If we engage in a mature approach to the practice of a liberty, are capable of reasonably defending our decisions, and are fully convinced of the reasons we have chosen, then questions like "what is responsible drinking" and "how do you define 'drunk'" don't need to be asked.  If these three principles inform our approach to Christian liberty, then we'll be full of the Spirit (Eph 5.18), sober-minded, vigilant, and fully aware of the devastating temptations Satan is capable of placing in our paths (1 Pet 5.8).  We'll be wary of what the abuse of liberty looks like, and we'll be cautious in our exercise because we want to good stewards of the lives, time, and resources that God has given to us.

Ultimately, whether we eat, drink, or abstain altogether, we do it not because it is our "right," but because we can glorify the God who has redeemed us from a life of sin and bondage through either avenue (1 Cor 10.31).  Furthermore, if these three guidelines inform our thinking, then we won't destroy the work of God in another individual's heart simply for the sake of exercising our "right" (14.20).

May all that we do be to His praise and glory.
_____________

EDIT:

I wanted to clarify two quick things.

1. Legalism

I think we throw this word around a lot, often misusing it to describe conservative churches, schools, and other institutions.  There is nothing wrong with a Christian university mandating that, while a student attends their school, he abstain from drinking, smoking, and even from certain forms of media in an effort to focus on his studies specifically during that time.  That is not legalistic.  That is, in fact, a form of fasting and something I myself would encourage and participate in doing.  Even more conservative schools that insist on uniforms, dress codes, or certain haircuts for their students are not necessarily being legalistic.  There is nothing wrong with an institution mandating certain rules for its attendees during their tenure there.  Legalism, on the other hand, is a dogmatic insistence on an extra-biblical principle.  For example, a school explicitly teaching that alcohol and various forms of media are inherently sinful and never acceptable would be legalistic.

Furthermore, a church that requests its Elders and teachers not to drink would not be legalistic if the request is made from the standpoint of caution, avoiding the appearance of evil, and setting a strong example for the congregation.  It is well within the rights and authority of church leaders to make such requests of its ministers, who should be submissive to the leadership placed over them.

Let's make sure we can distinguish between "conservative" and "legalistic" when it comes to Christian liberty.

2. Legality

I will hear no arguments about the unfairness of the drinking age or how maturity and responsibility aren't tied to physical age.  Frankly, unfairness is a fact of life, and drinking is nothing more than a wasteful pastime and a social problem for individuals under the age of 21.  For that matter, it is more often than not a wasteful pastime and a social problem for individuals over the age of 21, which is why the exercise of the liberty to drink must be done in sincerity, with caution and prayer.

Regardless of our personal opinions, we are to be subject to the rulers, authorities, and legislations that govern our society (Rom 13.1).  Therefore, if you are under the legal age of 21, you biblically do not have the right to exercise the Christian liberty of drinking alcohol.  Therefore, if you still live in your parents' house and they request that you don't drink, you biblically do not have the right to exercise the Christian liberty of drinking alcohol.  If you are still living in their home, your parents are your rightful governing authority -- even if you are over the age of 18 or 21.

In either of those instances, to drink is not a liberty for you to exercise.  It's a sin.

Granted, there are instances where parental approval can make provision for minors to drink.  For example, an Italian family that has wine with dinner and has no problem with children or teenagers having some, or in a church that uses real wine for communion and allows parents to give their kids wine instead of juice if they so desire.  Generally speaking, "parental consent" is not a loophole.  There are times, however, where it is acceptable.