I have apparently offended a weaker set of brothers. Since the offense occurred on-line, perhaps an on-line mea culpa is in order. The problem though, as is usually the case with weaker brothers, is that these brothers don’t think they are weaker. They think I am.
My error happened during a discussion of what sort of actions are just or fitting regarding one’s membership in a Presbyterian communion. Tim Keller’s own understanding of justice was the basis for thinking not only about what Christians might owe to their neighbors but also their fellow brothers, sisters, and overseers in the Reformed faith.
The comments progressed and the along came the Baylys with their big foot on the matter of abortion. Tim, I believe, intervened with his usually loving touch:
Fifty comments by the most eminent among us filled out with accolades from their admirers and nary a word about the 1,300,000 unborn children slaughtered on our doorsteps, blood running in our gutters and bones in our dumpsters year after bloody year, decade after obscene decade.
When the question of conflict with the civil magistrate is brought up, examples are sodomites, Palestinians, African Americans, and Third Reich Jews.
Not a word about the unborn. Not a word about the greatest injustice in the history of man.
Well over a billion victims felled by this bloody oppression and neither Darryl Hart nor The Prince can quite remember it. The murders are carried out on their doorsteps day after day, many by souls in their congregations, but in a discussion of justice and civil disobedience, that particular injustice doesn’t quite make the cut. It’s not in their memory bank. It doesn’t tug at their minds or hearts.
Now here is the offense, apparently, though Tim (Bayly, that is) never specified the precise error (or sin?). I was carrying on a conversation about justice. The specific context was the justice that Presbyterians owe other Presbyterians. And my failure was not to mention the slaughter of innocents.
If I apply what Paul writes about weaker brothers in Romans 14, I need to start from the perspective that speech is itself not unclean. Paul writes in 14:20 that nothing is unclean in itself. That means that I was not wrong to speak. The further implication of Paul’s assertion is that speaking or writing about justice is also not unclean (two negatives adding up to the positive of “cleanâ€). So far, I think I’m okay.
But then along comes Tim and says that to speak without mentioning abortion, or to speak about Presbyterian justice without mentioning the slaughter of innocents, is unclean. His explanation was that he “found instructive . . . the absence of any discussion of abortion.†But since Tim has gone on record and declared 2k to be deserving of anathemas, he would seem to think that the discussion at Old Life was more than instructive. It was wicked.
The implication here is that Tim and David are like the weaker brothers in Romans and Corinthians who could not bear to watch other Christians eat meat offered to idols. They actually do what Paul professedly forbids: they declare something good (a conversation about Presbyterian justice) to be evil; and they judge other Christian brothers for not mentioning abortion even though Paul says we should not judge each other for either talking about abortion or not mentioning it: “Let not him who eats (talks about abortion) despise him who abstains (silence about abortion), and let not him who abstains (silence) pass judgment on him who eats (talks); 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†[3-4].
John Murray has a very helpful essay on Romans 14 that explains the logic of Paul’s instruction and also elaborates the enmity that often afflicts the weaker brother. First, on the nature of the weakness:
While it is true that there is nothing unclean of itself; it does not follow that all have the knowledge and faith and strength to use all things. In this matter of conduct we have not only to consider the intrinsic rightness of these usable things but also the subjective condition or state of mind of the person using them. There is not in every person the requisite knowledge or faith. Until understanding and faith have attained to the level of what is actually true, it is morally perilous for the person concerned to exercise the right and liberty which belong to that person in Christ Jesus. The way of edification is not that conduct should overstep the limits of knowledge and faith or to violate the dictates of conscience, but for conscience to observe the dictates of understanding and faith. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” The believer must always act out of consciousness of devotion to Christ and when he cannot do that in a certain particular he must refrain from the action concerned. We must remember that although nothing is unclean of itself; yet to him that reckoneth it to be unclean to him it is unclean. To use other terms, we must remember that though things are indifferent in themselves the person is never in a situation that is indifferent. Things are indifferent but persons never.
In which case, if the Baylys really are weak, their weakness comes from an insufficient understanding of the faith or ignorance. And what goes with this is often a sense of moral superiority. The remedy for this, according to Murray, is further instruction in the faith:
The weak must ever be reminded that their censorious judgment with respect to the exercise of liberty on the part of the strong is a sin which the Scripture condemns. “Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.” “Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? To his own Lord he stands or falls. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:3, 4). The censorious judgment in which the weak are so liable to indulge is just as unequivocally condemned as is the contempt to which the strong are too prone. And with such condemnation there is the condemnation of the self-righteousness that so frequently accompanies such censoriousness.
Now, it could be that I am really the weaker brother. It could be that I do not fully understand how I need to mention abortion in every conversation. But if this were the case, is the treatment that I receive from the loving and pastoral words of the Baylys really the way that the stronger should bear with the weaker? Rebukes are one thing, but ridicule? Wouldn’t censoriousness, in fact, be the give away on which brother is weak or strong or whether both brothers are weak?
Old Life 
DGH
I agree you are being given a hard time not because of what you said but because of what you didn’t say. This is hardly ‘just’. But I think your use of Roms 14 to attack the attack is way off beam. When Paul says ‘nothing’ is unclean in itself he is talking about foods and drink. He does not mean literally ‘nothing in the world’. He is speaking of matters which are morally neutral. What we say is never morally neutral – it is always good or bad.
Unjustifiable use of a passage to refute an unjust accusation.
LikeLike
Bringing Edward Koehler into the fray (excuse me, but he’s a Lutheran and that may make all the difference) he writes in “A Summary of Christian Doctrine” about the sins of “giving offense” and those of “taking offense.” Perhaps there is a fine line between the two from time to time, but the Romans passage may illustrate it very well after all. How far are we to go (as the stronger) in order to avoid giving offense (to the weaker)? Is Paul talking merely about adiaphoron?
Yes, we live in a corrupt and amoral society. But so did the Roman Christians, who at least one emperor labeled his most peaceful, model citizens. They endured the hell of Roman culture at that time because they had their eye on much better things in the future. Are we wrong to speak out about (and vote against) abortion as Christian citizens? Absolutely not! But do we need to go to the extent of organizing good-government coalitions and march in protest lines in the name of the church? What would be the point? As if God, in his ultimate and final wisdom does not have the outcome worked out, the elect in mind, and remnant who belong to it …
LikeLike
John, so you think Paul is merely talking about food and drink? I don’t. Neither did John Murray or many others. This passage is at the heart liberty of conscience and whether other people may bind our consciences legitimately on anything not prescribed by the word.
I would hope you’d revise your assertion about speech being either good or bad. If that’s true, then rap is definitely evil. Think rules of grammar and syntax.
LikeLike
Darryl
I did not say Roms 14 is merely food and drink. These are examples of morally neutral issues. Roms 14 ‘is at heart liberty of conscience’ about morally neutral matters not things not prescribed by the word. There are many things not prescribed by the word that are not morally neutral.
The distinction between food (morally neutral matters) and words (not morally neutral) is clear in Jesus’ words
Matt 15:11 (ESV)
it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.â€
In fact the Roms 14 passage is even more complicated than I suggest since the ‘weaker’ conscience is in fact the misguided conscience. But that is another matter.
LikeLike
But, John, words are themselves not evil or good. It’s the person using them that makes them such. One person says “lord” in vain, another in reverence. But the word “Lord” is not morally freighted. It’s a sign.
LikeLike
I’ve always understood the weaker brother to be he who is unconvinced in his own mind about a thing indifferent. The usual template in our day is substance use, and the typical breakdown is between those who are strongly convinced against and thus refrain, and those who are not and thus participate. The former cannot be said to be weak, since they are strongly convinced. What strongly convinced refrainers are when they fault equally strong participators is more obnoxious than weak.
The parallel here is vociferous protestation of certain legislation. Like consumption, political opinion is a thing indifferent. Some are strongly convinced that such protestation, while certainly a matter of liberty, is undignified, unbecoming and generally poor public behavior and thus refrain. The brothers Bayly seem pretty strongly convinced otherwise. When they fault those who refrain from vociferous protestation it’s the inverse of substance use refrainers faulting the participators. I tend to think they are more obnoxious than weak.
LikeLike
Darryl
I agree that in your sense words are not evil nor the faculty of speech but words do not come to us as mere words. They come to us as communication. They are always ‘message’. They express the thoughts and intents of the heart and as such always are good or bad. That is why we must give an account for every idle word spoken on the day of judgement.
Paul in Roms 14 is speaking of cultural and quasi-religious practices (Jewish cultural taboos). These he sees as sufficiently neutral (or insignificant) that he does not wish Christians to judge each other on their attitudes to them. In these cases motive becomes everything. Paul honours/bears with over-scrupulous consciences on intrinsically non-moral matters as long as these are not imposed on others.
Perhaps all I am saying is that I do not think was your best line of defense (accommodating American spelling out of cultural deference on a completely non-moral point) . Matt 7 Judge not that you be not judged or Paul’s 1 Cor 4 I am judged of no man seem more obvious where the issue is simply the judging of motives uncomplicated by issues of moral neutrality.
LikeLike
Zrim
Probably not the blog to get too engrossed in a debate such as this. Laying aside the rights and wrongs of using Roms 14, you write,
‘Some are strongly convinced that such protestation, while certainly a matter of liberty, is undignified, unbecoming and generally poor public behavior and thus refrain’.
If behaviour is undignified, unbecoming…poor public behaviour then can it sit comfortably in the area of ‘Christian liberty’?
I am not asking this for the sake of an argument but because I have a real difficulty in knowing where to draw lines in this area of ‘liberty’. Has a believer ‘liberty’ to watch regularly without church censure films that are pornographic (and what is pornographic)?
‘Film’ as a category like ‘language’ is morally neutral but are these films morally neutral? Is any actual film morally neutral?
LikeLike
DGH: One person says “lord†in vain, another in reverence. But the word “Lord†is not morally freighted. It’s a sign.
Do I sense that at long last, “motive” might be an acceptable category? 😉
Zrim: I’ve always understood the weaker brother to be he who is unconvinced in his own mind about a thing indifferent.
The weaker brother appears to be one who is unconvinced that a thing is indifferent. Without recognizing that God made all foods clean of themselves (Rom 14.14), the weaker brother fears that the food itself, or else its provenance from idol-worship (1 Cor 10.27-29), will defile him and thus refrains.
And remarkably, Paul does not condemn the weaker brother, but tells the rest to treat him without quarreling, judging, or holding him in contempt.
The real problem occurs if, as seems to be the case here, the weaker brother is an officer of the church, and is not keeping his opinions to himself (Rom 14.22), but making them a rule of faith for others.
And in that case, there is a responsibility to stand firm against extrabiblical commands; yet (I would argue) without contempt. I think on this point, the Bayleys have crossed the line in insisting that abortion policy be a theme of our sermons, and they should be resisted.
LikeLike
John T: …because I have a real difficulty in knowing where to draw lines in this area of ‘liberty’. Has a believer ‘liberty’ to watch regularly without church censure films that are pornographic (and what is pornographic)?
There are two separate issues involved with liberty. The first is one’s liberty before others; and here, the standard is Good and Necessary Inference from Scripture. That is, if Joe Bob says “X is a sin”, he needs substantial backing; for he is making X a matter of faith.
That means that you will have a substantial amount of liberty in that sense, for our liberty in matters of faith is great.
(Not so if the magistrate says, “Don’t do X.” There, you obey the command yet without making X a matter of conscience or faith.)
The second is your liberty with regard to your own conscience before God. And here, you have to pay attention. Does the movie tempt you? If so, what does that reveal about the idols of your heart? It isn’t the movie’s fault, after all; though some movies seem calculated to try and corrupt. And therefore, you may well not have the freedom to watch a movie that someone else could watch.
I have a friend who abstains from reading fantasy. Prior to coming to Christ, she was heavily into the occult; and fantasy novels tempt her. There it is: Harry Potter really *can* be a temptation. But only for some.
LikeLike
Jeff, the weaker brother text is actually 1 Cor 8. There Paul is pointing out the “nothingness” of idols and that those who are strong know this and thus may participate. And then, “But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.”
So, it seems feasible to say that there are three groups: strong-refrainers, strong-participators and the weak who must be protected from both. Refrainers to a thing indifferent are not weak. My mother-in-law refrains from drinking for principled reasons, so it would be insulting to call her weak because of it. Likewise, I refrain from protesting abortion clinics for principled reasons, so it would be insulting to say that I am weak because of it. My own sense of it is that calling someone who refrains from what you partcipate in weak very often in a way to collar them as less-than, e.g. the Bayly’s calling 2kers who don’t protest “unfaithful.”
What naturally ensues is a battle between strong believers casting each other as weak. As if this weren’t bad enough, the real weak brother gets lost in the melee. Moreover, if we allow the strong refrainer the status of weak brother it seems to fuel more tyranny than love. After all, the weak brother is entitled to our sympathy and subsequent self-sacrifice—we are commanded to be his slave. If he who is strong yet refrains is given the opportunity to have bestowed upon him the status of master he could take and abuse those who assume the position of slave in order to simply manipluate others into behaving like him.
Thus, because either strong partakers use the status to cast aspersions or strong refrainers abuse it to tyrannize and formulate legalisms, those who refrain should not be afforded the status of weak.
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, the weaker brother text is actually 1 Cor 8.
Yes, that is another weaker brother text. Not the only one, though.
Zrim: Thus, because either strong partakers use the status to cast aspersions or strong refrainers abuse it to tyrannize and formulate legalisms, those who refrain should not be afforded the status of weak.
I hear what you’re saying, but I think the more elegant solution is to distinguish between individuals who refrain and church officers who require “refraint” from everyone else.
Otherwise, we end up having to figure out the heart-conditions of the refrainers and participators to see whether they are truly weak or not. And that’s a no-go.
LikeLike
Jeff
Thanks for comment. And largely I agree with it. Yet I still have difficulty. My difficulty is, suppose a professing Christian in my church regularly visits a strip club, and another brother owns a casino, while yet another member, a sister this time, is a kissogram – are these matters of liberty?
None, I think, are directly addressed by Scripture, yet I believe all to be wrong and seriously wrong. I feel all three demand church censure if there is no repentance.
Am I touching on an area where my more pietistic leanings are at odds with reformed?
Zrim
Your mother is not ‘weak’ in conscience if she chooses not to drink because she thinks drink plays too big a part in life and is often destructive. If she does not drink because she believes it is intrinsically sinful to do so then she is weak in conscience. Weak/strong is not a matter of resolve/strength of belief etc it is a matter of conscience. Where someone believes a practice to be in itself sinful which is not in itself sinful in that area a person is ‘weak’ in conscience.
The Roms 14 believers who feel it is wrong to eat meats and drinks and observes certain days when these are not wrong are ‘weak’ in conscience or if you like ‘weak’ in faith. They may in fact be quite robust in their ‘belief’ but actually are ‘weak in faith’.
Equally I think we must distinguish between a ‘strong’ conscience and a ‘seared’ conscience. Many claim a strong conscience when involved in morally dubious matters when their conscience is in reality not strong but seared, or corrupt.
Darryl
While I think that the principles of Roms 14 apply more widely than merely food, nevertheless when Paul speaks about things being ‘clean’ in themselves he is specifically talking about food.
Rom 14:20 (ESV)
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.
Clearly, taking the chapter as a whole, the discussion goes wider than foods but herein lies my dilemma, I cannot see how this can be so widened to embrace matters that society itself may even consider sordid but because we do not have a clear chapter and verse of sanction becomes an issue of personal judgement. Nor do I actually think Scripture functions that way. It is not intended to be a definitive moral textbook.
All
I like ‘good and necessary inference’ but even this is subjective. I think there is inevitably a degree of subjective judgement on many issues, I do not mean simply on the part of the individual but on the part of the church too. It seems appropriate for elders to ‘discern’ on say the examples I have given. I know this is open to abuse and legalism but church life is not perfect and we must trust the Spirit to guide us between legalism and licentious extremes.
Finally, not convinced that idol-worship is the issue in Romans (though it is in Corinthians). In Romans the tension is between Jew and gentile christians. I suspect the Jewish believers had scruples over non-kosher food and abandoning Jewish religious days (ceremonial not moral matters).
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ve certainly nothing against that. Plus it works for church officers who require refraining individuals to participate, as in “If you don’t shoehorn abortion into every cotton-picking conversation and show sufficient indignation to the satisfaction of my personal fixations and obsessions then you are ‘unfaithful.'”
Still, though I appreciate it, it’s a little weird to hear Mr. Motivation champion a way to not upturn inward stones. Still again, that really wasn’t my point. If church officers wrongly bind consciences the way the Bayly’s do then so do ordinary believers, and that happens when somebody, ordained or not, doesn’t understand liberty of conscience.
LikeLike
John, I’m not much for straining at someobody else’s internal reasons for a thing. To be honest, it’s probably a little of both (thinks it destructive/intrinsically evil, probably it’s evil because it is destructive, etc.). She refrains from a thing indifferent. That’s all I need to know. When she requires my wedding reception be dry then she becomes a legalist, no matter her reasons.
LikeLike
Zrim: Still, though I appreciate it, it’s a little weird to hear Mr. Motivation champion a way to not upturn inward stones.
Is that my new superhero identity? I was just getting used to being “Mr. Calculus” at school, a meme that got started in December.
But seriously, if you go back and pick through my discussions of motives, I think you might see that there’s a parallel structure there. The individual Christian, on my account, is supposed to take his own motives into account; but he mayn’t in general judge the motives of others.
LikeLike
John: My difficulty is, suppose a professing Christian in my church regularly visits a strip club, and another brother owns a casino, while yet another member, a sister this time, is a kissogram – are these matters of liberty?
None, I think, are directly addressed by Scripture, yet I believe all to be wrong and seriously wrong. I feel all three demand church censure if there is no repentance.
The Westminster Larger Catechism might be a good read on this. Take a look at Qn. 98 – 153.
LikeLike
DGH:
It is odd that you are so anti-anti-abortion. Which is not the same as pro-abortion.
It is the killing of innocent life and 43 million of them have occurred in the US since 1973,
Calvin believed that abortion was the worst kind of killing, for the womb should be the safest place for a baby. Not every Christian is led to be an anti-abortion leader, but certainly we should be vocal about the slaughter, right?
LikeLike
Eliza, why would you ever call me anti-anti-abortion. My objections to the Baylys have everything to do with their self-righteousness that judges others for not having their very same convictions. It could be Christian schools. I don’t like people who turn certain crusades into sacred cows. And it sounds to me like you are a bovine worshiper if you think I am anti-anti-abortion.
LikeLike
A few comments:
>>the Baylys have crossed the line in insisting that abortion policy be a theme of our sermons, and they should be resisted.
The Baylys have not “insist(ed) that abortion policy be a theme of our sermons.” It’s the slaughter of abortion itself that must be opposed because, as Tim Keller and Darryl Hart have discussed on this blog, believers have an obligation to pursue justice and this slaughter is the defining injustice of our culture and nation and churches.
>>Tim has gone on record and declared 2k to be deserving of anathemas…
My objection is to your own novelty of R2K–not the orthodox Reformed view known as 2K.
>>But then along comes Tim and says that to speak without mentioning abortion, or to speak about Presbyterian justice without mentioning the slaughter of innocents, is unclean.
Had the discussion been denominational or “presbyterian justice,” I wouldn’t have intruded myself. What was under consideration was the pursuit of justice in general, including justice in the public square. As I wrote in my comment: “When the question of conflict with the civil magistrate is brought up, examples are sodomites, Palestinians, African Americans, and Third Reich Jews.”
But not the unborn.
What you’re talking about with all this weaker/stronger brother stuff is beyond me. But here are three texts deserving of our careful attention living, as we do, in the most bloodthirsty civilization in history:
“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘You shall also say to the sons of Israel: “Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones. I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name. If the people of the land, however, should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his offspring to Molech, so as not to put him to death, then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut off from among their people both him and all those who play the harlot after him, by playing the harlot after Molech.”‘†Leviticus 20:1-5, NAS95.
“When I went out to the gate of the city, When I took my seat in the square, The young men saw me and hid themselves, And the old men arose and stood. The princes stopped talking And put their hands on their mouths; The voice of the nobles was hushed, And their tongue stuck to their palate. For when the ear heard, it called me blessed, And when the eye saw, it gave witness of me, Because I delivered the poor who cried for help, And the orphan who had no helper. The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me, And I made the widow’s heart sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me; My justice was like a robe and a turban. I was eyes to the blind And feet to the lame. I was a father to the needy, And I investigated the case which I did not know. I broke the jaws of the wicked And snatched the prey from his teeth.†(Job 29:7-17)
“Thus says the LORD, ‘For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four I will not revoke its punishment, Because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead In order to enlarge their borders.’†(Amos 1:13)
“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.†(James 1:27)
Concerning my words to you, Darryl, I apologize for the times I have been uncharitable to you in our discussions. Please forgive me. I will work harder to speak to you with respect, in love.
Love,
LikeLike
The Baylys have not “insist(ed) that abortion policy be a theme of our sermons.†It’s the slaughter of abortion itself that must be opposed because, as Tim Keller and Darryl Hart have discussed on this blog, believers have an obligation to pursue justice and this slaughter is the defining injustice of our culture and nation and churches.
I think it’s a fair counter-point to say that the Bayly’s, strictly speaking, haven’t insisted that abortion policy be a theme of sermons.
But as things like “A Sermon to a President†clearly imply, abortion policy is being addressed by certain pulpits. Tim Bayly has tipped his hat to the spirituality of the church and maintained that he abhors using the pulpit for political purposes, but I’ve yet to see any criticism of his brother’s “Sermon to a President.†It seems to me that one creative (and pervasive) way to avoid the problem of violating the SOTC is to maintain that all one is really doing is addressing the moral dimension of a thing (e.g. “It’s the slaughter of abortion that must be opposedâ€). But the last I checked, the term “President†was political verbiage, thus when one addresses a man from afar by his political title one is making a political point. And the last I checked the very term “abortion†was one of the most politically charged terms in 2011 America. None of that is to say that either a man who holds political office mayn’t be addressed or a term that is clearly politicized should be avoided. Rather, it’s to say that it would be nice to hear cause-oriented Christians admit these things and not act like the last 35+ years in America never happened when it comes to a more honest assessment of the spirituality of the church and not only when it serves their cause’s purpose. That might force them to have to admit that older understandings of the spirituality of the church are over-rated and some social gospel is good, but that sure would go down a bit easier than trying to convince everyone they abhor using the pulpit for political purposes. All we can be left to conclude is that they abhor using the pulpit for political causes they oppose or don’t care much about.
LikeLike
Tim, Thank you for your apology. I would encourage you to think more about weaker and stronger brothers before you censor others and determine whether your conviction is a matter of conscience. Murder is that. How we speak about murder is not, as near as I can discern.
LikeLike