What do you think about issues like drinking alcohol, playing cards, social dancing, or going to church on Sundays vs. another day or the week? For some an occasional drink (so long as it doesn’t lead to drunkenness, Eph 5:18) is morally acceptable, while others think it morally forbidden. Issues like these fall into a category called “Christian liberty.” Christian liberty involves those practices which are not directly covered in the Bible—no biblical absolutes are offered that either command or forbid them. Therefore, a Christian has liberty or freedom in his or her decision of whether or not to engage in the practice. But how should a Christian decide whether or not to engage in or refrain from such practices? The Apostle Paul offers eight questions or tests which each Christian should employ when deciding on an issue of Christian liberty.
Paul explores the issue of Christian liberty at some length in chapters 14-15 of his letter to the Romans. The particular practices in question in this letter of Paul’s are (1) eating meat which had been offered to idols and (2) observing one specific day of the week as sacred. His overarching point is that, regarding of how one comes down on an issues of Christian liberty, one must not impost his or her scruples on others and expect them to live by another’s convictions (Rom 14:3). Rather, with the help of the Holy Spirit, each person should decide for him or herself. However, it’s not as easy as it sounds.
Even though Paul teaches that all things within the scope of Christian liberty are acceptable or morally neutral, they can become wrong if we think they are wrong. As John and Paul Feinberg write in their book, Ethics for A Brave New World, “Each person must decide for himself before God whether to indulge or refrain, but since a wrong decision turns a morally neutral practice into sin, one must make right decisions.” The Feinbergs then identify these eight guidelines suggested by the Apostle Paul for making right decisions on morally neutral practices of Christian liberty:
(1) Am I fully persuaded that it is right? (Rom 14:5, 14, 23)
If there is doubt in us about whether or not we should engage in something, the Apostle Paul says to refrain. While it possible that out doubt might be removed in the future, we must be careful not to dismiss it. For what we’re talking about is the delicate compass of our conscience which speaking to us. And by dismissing the compass we run the risk of damaging such a fragile instrument of the human heart. It is this instrument of the conscious which allows to us be navigated by the soft whisper of God. So, maybe more than anything else, Paul seems to be warning us to be careful with the tool with which we hear God’s direction for us.
(2) Can I do it as unto the Lord? (Rom 14:6-8)
If we cannot do something as a service to God, then we should refrain. This might have something to do with my mindset while I’m engaging in the particular practice. Is it reasonable to think that what I’m doing makes God smile?
(3) Can I do it without being a stumbling block to my brother or sister in Christ? (Rom 14:13, 15, 20-21)
If a less mature Christian would either (1) be offended, or (2) sin himself by dismissing his own conscience (reason #1 above), we ought to refrain. However, Paul does not tell us that we must refrain absolutely. Rather, we must not engage in the activity in such a way that would flaunt our freedom in the face of the weaker person. We may engage but keep it between ourselves and God (14:22). So, our concern for another’s walk with God will sometimes cause us to either (1) refrain altogether, or  (2) engage privately.
Â
(4) Does it bring peace? (Rom 14:17-19)
Though certainly not at all costs, a significant goal in the body of Christ is to have peace among its members. So, we should do what brings peace. If what we practice would stir up strife, we ought to refrain.Â
(5) Does it edify my brother or sister? (Rom 14:19)
This is closely tied to #4. While something we do might not bring strife, it might not build another person up. So, in making these tuff decisions we must pursue both peace and edification.
(6) Is it profitable? (1 Cor 6:12)
There may be a practice which, while lawful, does not act as a benefit to you or to others. While a thing may be acceptable it might not be constructive to a life of spiritual or physical development.
(7) Does it enslave me? (1 Cor 6:12)
This is a similar point to #6.  Could there be a practice which does not harm anyone immediately, yet it is something which could lead to a situation which would be harmful? 1 Jn 2:15 warns us not to love the world with the kind of love that is reserved for God alone. Many things in our world are good and fine, but if they become too important they run the risk of enslaving us.Â
(8) Does it bring glory to God? (1 Cor 10:31)
In all we practice (word, deed, & thought) our goal should be to bring God glory. Our practices should reflect or speak of who God is (hence, our image of God). If one of the preceding seven questions cannot be answered positively, we can likely assume that we will also not bring glory to God. Equally, if we’ve answered positively to the other questions, the practice should be acceptable on this ground as well. This last question seems to be the primary question of our motivation for all actions.Â
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Besides the above mentioned issues of Christian liberty (drinking, dancing, cards, days of observation), what are other relevant morally neutral practices that are wrestled over today?
2. A significant issue in America today is drinking alcohol. What are your personal convictions on this issue? Why and how have you come to your convictions?
3. How do we guard against the temptation to impose our personal preferences on others? Why is this such a temptation?
4. Is there any practice in your life that you have serious reservations about after reading the above eight questions?Â
12 Comments on “Christian Liberty: Decisions when there is not a moral absolute in the Bible”
Brent: Your questions are very broad. They are also situational. I will try to comment. On question one– Body piercing, dress styles,companions and various doctrines. Question 2 — I leave alcohol alone. I have a an alcoholic friend that one drink will jetsom back in being a hard alcholic. I have sampled alcohol but not become a user. Therefore I restrict myself of any alcohol. Question 3 — We must be firm in Biblical truths but give liberty in practice. We are told that we are to be holy as God is Holy thereby we make the decision that others should mimic us because we claim holiness. Question 4 — In my personal life I have some practices that I feel important but wish that I could encourage others to imulate such as knowing and searching the scriptures and considering that we are made in the image and character of God. I feel that this subject can cause even more conflict if not properly understood.
Wilbur: There is a great need for people that actively pursue a personal relationship with God. Many people attend church but neglect to dive deep. I encourage you to seek out ways to share your desire to know God. Have you ever thought about spiritual gifts? Do you think this might be yours? Just remember that we need to be cautious when leading people. We must always leave room for God to speak, pushing our own ideas on others, using God as the bulldozer frequently causes the opposite to happen.
In the love of Christ,
James
Regarding question #1, I think a lot of things that are usually seen as not presenting a “Christian appearance” fit that category. Tattoos, weird hairstyles and styles of dress, and the use of certain words (“cussin’,” if you grew up Southern like me). 🙂 Also, the way that we spend our money can affect our witness.
I’ll nominate same-sex marriage as being withing the scope of Christian liberty. All of the same-sex couples I know fit the eight requirements you list very well.
My comments are related to the Bioethics class being taught at 9:45 am. I am struggling to separate the “Christian World View” with the political ideology of the Republican party. I understand that you are an absolutist when it comes to the dignity of life and that any fertilized egg is considered a life and should be protected – no exceptions. This seems to also be the view of the majority of the Republican party. How then can the party be pro-war, pro-death penalty, and pro-guns (even for use by law enforcement people)? Don’t each of these in effect promote the killing of people – innocent or not? Also, what is your response to the unfortunate situation where a mother’s life is threatened with a pregnancy? Is it then okay to abort the child to save the mother, or is it more ethical to let one or both die “naturally”? How about when parents and their doctors must chose which child shall be given the best chance at life when separating siamese twins (in essence killing one so the other can live)?
This is an excellent class – very thought provoking and respectful of all view points. I have long been comfortable with the belief that the world is very gray – I have more problems with the rigidity and intolerance of an absolutist ideology. Only God can comprehend the complexity of humankind – can it really be so simple as black and white? I’d appreciate your comments.
Pat, I certainly don’t attempt to defend any political party on this blog. It’s just not within the scope of my intent.
Regarding the issue of the rightness or wrongness of taking life, I\\\’d encourage you to take a look at a post I wrote back on Oct 16, 2006 called, \”Is Jesus a pacifist?\” (http://www.brentcunningham.org/?p=161). I hope this will be helpful in seeing the distinction between the justified and unjustified taking of human life. The Bible certainly does distinguish killing and murdering.
I\\\’d also encourage you to come to the bioethics class on the Sunday that we speak on abortion. We\\\’ll discuss many issues surrounding abortion, including the case when a mother\\\’s life is in danger.
I\\\’d agree that there are many very difficult ethical issues in life. And I certainly don\\\’t pretend to have it all figured out. But I do think that God has given us principles in His Word that we ought to utilize in order to make the best decisions we can. As we said week 1, there are both subjective and objective truths. In the above post I recognize the reality of subjective moral truth. But we also can not escape the existence of objective or absolute truths (moral or otherwise). They are realities which we simply cannot get away from. In fact, the funny thing is, we end up affirming them when we try to deny them (e.g., \\\”It is universally true that there are no truths which apply universally!\\\”). See what I mean?
Please keep up the engagement! I know I\\\’m being sharpened through the process of this class!
Gavin – “Christian liberty involves those practices which are not directly covered in the Bible—no biblical absolutes are offered that either command or forbid them.”
Mike- The new testament only mentions homosexuality in passing and only where it is practiced outside of committed, monogamous relationships. Same-sex marriage is not directly covered in the Bible. (Brent’s new post on Morality is more precisely focused on this issue, so I will look for responses there.)
Gavin:
How does God define marriage? Through the writers of the Bible, God defines it in Genesis 2:24, and by inference, he also states in Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-28, and I Corinthians 6:9-10 what marriage is not, in no uncertain terms.
Given the Bible’s (i.e. God’s) view of homosexuality, as relayed to us in both the Old and New Testaments, then it’s logical to assume that God’s view of same-sex marriage would be the same. Granted, we New Testament Gentile Christians are not subject to the Laws of Moses. We don’t stone homosexuals in this day and age, no more than we stone adulteresses and those who do work on the Sabbath. But Paul did mention, among other things, the practice of homosexuality having been practiced by some members of one of the churches, and how they should now be free from that since they were now in Christ and no longer enslaved to sin. He also said that homosexuals, or the practice of homosexuality, will not appear in Heaven (along with lying, swindling, murdering, etc.) Homosexuality certainly wasn’t singled out as the only sinful practice which Christians needed to avoid, but it certainly was mentioned in the list.
A short, interesting, and very readable book about homosexuality and its negative consequences is “What’s Wrong With Same-Sex Marriage?”, fairly recently co-authored by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe. I found it to be very enlightening, and a good source for helping the Christian to argue knowlegeably against homosexuality and the proposed legalization of gay marriage. Another book which might be worth your look is “Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same Sex Marriage and Parenting”, by Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier.
Jeff,
It is reasonable to consider all of the verses that you mention when discussing same-sex marriage. We also should consider the entire chapter devoted to primarily to marriage, 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul makes a rather forceful case that celibacy is not for everyone and should only be undertaken voluntarily. He concludes, “…it is better to marry than burn with passion.” [1Cor 7:9]. Given his view on marriage in this chapter, it is reasonable to assume that his view of same-sex marriage would be the same (especially if he knew what we currently know about homosexuality).
Denying marriage to homosexuals is puts them in exactly the difficult situation that Paul wants us to avoid. Should we just ignore the substance of Paul’s instructions?
Gavin:
Paul would never have condoned something that he had already expressly stated was wrong in other passages. If a man is burning with passion for another man (or a woman for another woman), this is a temptation into grave sin. The person struggling with this should seek strength from God to avoid this trap. This can be found through his Word, through prayer, through other trusted Christians, and possibly through other organizations like Exodus International that can help the person free himself from this unnatural desire.
Jeff,
Actually, Paul does exactly this. Condoning and condemning the same practice is the whole point of Romans 14 (the primary basis of Brent’s post), 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1, and others. Paul isn’t being inconsistent, he is emphasizing the importance of context. For example, if you think some foods are unclean, then for you they are unclean and you shouldn’t eat them. If you think all foods are the same, great, no harm in eating them all. [Rom 14:14] Likewise, sex outside of marriage is condemned, but within marriage it is exalted. Paul’s passing condemnations of homosexual acts outside of marriage parallel his condemnations of heterosexual acts outside of marriage, and it is reasonable to think that within marriage they would meet with similar approval.
Paul is very practical. He wants us to stop judging each other and arguing over moral codes and start serving God and loving each other. It is hard for me to believe that the man who said “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” [Gal 3:28] would object to two men marrying. I certainly don’t think he would encourage them to participating a largely ineffective, long term rehabilitation program when they could be happily together and doing God’s work.
If someone really doesn’t feel comfortable with their sexual orientation, that is quite another matter. They should be free to try to change it or to remain celibate. If your closest male friend proposes to you, but you don’t feel that marrying another man would be conducive to doing God’s work, then you must refuse, even if means ending a relationship that you cherish. No one should think less of you. Likewise, you should not judge couples who make another choice.
This theme is repeated throughout the New Testament. Jesus healed on the Sabbath, ate with sinners and touched an unclean woman. The Council at Jerusalem decided that Christian gentiles need not follow the Mosaic Law. Paul argued that Christians need not observe holy days and could eat food sacrificed to idols (one of the few things expressly forbidden at the Jerusalem Council [Acts 15:20]). Over and over, acts that were once condemned are later condoned. Since many same-sex couples have demonstrated that they can live together, dedicated to love and service, same-sex marriage is a worthy addition to this list.
Peter said it best:
The obstruction of same-sex marriage has places a burden on homosexuals that most heterosexuals could not bear, driving homosexuals to despair, deceit, and too often to suicide. Christians are ruining peoples lives by placing themselves in God’s throne to judge what is acceptable for others. Listen to Paul:
Allowing same-sex marriage would remove a stumbling block that has brought down far too many good people already.