Offending a fellow believer

[Guest]

This question picks at my mind and I'm not sure what the answer is.

In Romans 14,15, Paul communicates that it is loving to consider setting a freedom aside for a brother/sister in the faith who's conscience is bothered by it.
Then, in Galatians 2, we read that Paul (and the leaders in Jerusalem) refused to to have Titus circumcised when under pressure from various Jewish believers.
In Acts 21, Paul agrees to pay for the purification rites (Jewish Old Covenant practice) for some Jewish believers as many Jewish believers are concerned that Paul is telling the Gentiles to forgo circumcision and other various Jewish Old Covenant practices.
But previously, Paul has Timothy circumcised (Acts 16).

So the question is:
When is it considered loving to forgo a believer's freedom and when should we take a stand?
Are there any principles that could be applied?


Dave

[_TK]

great question--

it sure seems to be on a case-by-case basis, doesn't it?

in regard to the Titus/Timothy situation, is it possible that Titus really didnt want to be circumcised (for obvious reasons) and Timothy didn't mind? that may be an explanation but is far from certain.

it seems in some situations Paul was stating that sometimes a person INDIVIDUALLY should set aside some personal freedoms, but we shouldn't require OTHERS to do so (like in the Titus situation).

it may also depend on whether giving up a freedom is truly because another believer is offended, vs. giving it up because the other believer is acting like a jerk (i.e. just wanting things his way). taking a stand in the latter case would be justified, perhaps in the former case it would not.


just some initial thoughts. i am curious what others have to say.

TK

[Guest]

Hi, there,

I could be off base, but wasn't it the case that Titus was a Gentile, but Timothy was Jewish (though of mixed marriage)? That might be a significant variable (or not).

Shalom,
Emmet

[_TK]

good point emmett- timothy had a greek father (i seem to remember) but jewish mother. since he wasnt circumcised per the law he obviously was being raised as a greek. but i think it does distinguish his case from that of Titus.

TK

[Guest]

I could be off base, but wasn't it the case that Titus was a Gentile, but Timothy was Jewish (though of mixed marriage)? That might be a significant variable (or not).

Although that is true, it really shouldn't matter to the question of the thread. The point was that, regardless of your heritage or ancestry, circumcision did not bring one into right relationship with God. Therefore, it could not be required for faith in God, after Christ.

Back to the original question:

When is it considered loving to forgo a believer's freedom and when should we take a stand?
Are there any principles that could be applied?

Modern applications : alcohol, tatoos, music, day-specific worship (Saturday or Sunday), educational choices, membership in an institutional church, etc.

The point isn't to address the specifics but to discuss principles that apply for the question at hand.

My guess is that all on this forum have, in one way or another, been confronted with a situation where we must make a choice to forgo freedom for the sake of a "weaker" brother or sister or not.
What choice did you make?
More importantly, Why?

Dave

[Guest]

Since I've started this thread, I'll take the first stab at answering my own question.

I tend to choose to follow my conscience rather than to forgo freedom. In honesty, I've not encountered a fellow believer who is "grieved" by my actions and therefore stumbles because of it. My hope is that in a situation where my actions truly grieve and stumble a fellow Christian, the Spirit, along with my heart, would compel me to forgo freedom.

My guess is that forgoing freedom may be a less frequent occurrence than following one's conscience into freedom.

Dave

[_TK]

i think the frustrating thing is attempting to determine what is a sin and what isnt. in other words, are there some areas where "freedom" isnt an option? i am not talking about things that are clearly forbidden in scripture- rather i am talking about things that have gray areas. for example...

is smoking a sin? if so, why? can it be a sin for one person and not another? if so, how? does it depend on the smoker's attitude?

what about alcohol? if drinking in and of itself is not a sin, when does it become a sin? at the point of drunkenness? what if you are just a little buzzed but not staggering all over the place? what if you are drunk but not being mean, not making an idiot of yourself, and you arent going to drive?

what about rock and roll? is listening to U2 okay (they have some christian-ish lyrics) and AC/DC (on the highway to hell) out? what about the Doors? or the Beatles? (known druggies). what about Nine Inch Nails (language, violence)?

what about tattoos? if getting one in and of itself is not a sin, when might it be? only if i put a satanic image? what if i get a bible verse or a christian symbol?

what about movies? are PG-13 and R movies always inappropriate for christians? what about coming of age movies like Thirteen Candles or The Breakfast Club(PG-13 for suggestiveness and language) or Saving private Ryan (R for realistic war violence and language- which is realistic in wartime).

is it only a sin if i THINK it is, or is more cut-and-dry than that?

Paul talks about it being a sin if it goes against your conscience. but how does this work? how can one person listen to AC/DC and it not be a sin, and at the same time be a sin for another person?

sorry, dave-- didnt mean to vent so much. but the problem i have with understanding the "freedom" concept is that i am not exactly sure what that means. let me give you an example. let's say i am a restaurant with my wife. let's further say that we wanted to have some wine with dinner. let's further say that a couple from our church sits down near us- perhaps i dont know them really well. in that example, i would likely not order any wine. is this because i am big wuss, because i am a hypocrite, or because i dont want to possibly stumble another believer? if the wine is already sitting on our table when the other couple is seated, that is a whole other problem. because while i honestly think that having some wine now and then is not a sin, the couple sitting there might. and now i've blown it. but if you practice your freedom only when other christians aren't looking, it seems you are now a hypocrite.

am i making sense?

TK

[Guest]

Hi, Dave,

Thank you for your response.

Although that is true, it really shouldn't matter to the question of the thread. The point was that, regardless of your heritage or ancestry, circumcision did not bring one into right relationship with God. Therefore, it could not be required for faith in God, after Christ.

I'll argue that the situation is more complicated than that. To pursue an analogue - baptism does not "bring one into right relationship with God" per se, and yet it is understood as being corollary to faith in Christ, if not absolutely necessary. Likewise, circumcision has a more subtly articulated significance than you have described.

But the topic does wander off of your primary topic. I'll let it rest.

Shalom,
Emmet


P.S.: edited once to improve a turn of phrase...

[Guest]

Paul talks about it being a sin if it goes against your conscience. but how does this work? how can one person listen to AC/DC and it not be a sin, and at the same time be a sin for another person?

TK, you certainly bring up many gray areas, but let me share my understanding of this specific question.

I think what Paul is saying is that if you believe that something is wrong and you do it anyway then you have sinned. Whether God sees it as sin or not.

For example. Let's say John thinks his parents don't want any of the children to take cookies out of the cookie jar, but he takes some anyway.
Later on his sister Mary comes and takes some cookies but she knew that the parents didn't actually mind if the kids took any cookies.

Even though it was OK to eat the cookies, John sinned. Why? Because in his mind he did actually rebell. Even though it technically wasn't rebellion against his parents he believed it was and did it anyway. Therefore, Mary and John did exactly the same thing. John sinned and Mary didn't.

Thus Paul said, if you have doubt in your mind and you think a certain thing may be a sin against God and you do it anyway, then to you it's sin. You technically did rebell against God by doing something you didn't think he wanted you to.

Therefore, on a practical note, I never try to force anyone to do something that is contrary to their conscience. I will usually share why I think it's OK but tell them to not violate their conscience if they're not certain something is OK to do.
I've also held off doing some things until I realized it was OK to do.

Steve

[_TK]

hi steve--

believe me, i hear what you are saying. i even understand the principal. but here's the problem.

i believe that most christians, for various reasons, have at least a "twinge" of conscience about most "gray area" items. for example, i had some conscience twinges about letting my 14 year old watch "the passion." it was rated R after all. christians shouldnt watch R movies. this was a really violent movie. but i decided to let him watch, because i think he needed to see it and i knew he could handle it. was it a sin because my conscience "twinged?"

here is another example. about once every 3 months i will smoke a cigar. i am not a smoker. but very occasionally i will smoke a cigar. it never fails-- i always have a "twinge" of conscience about smoking the cigar. but i usually finish, because i "convince myself" that smoking a cigar once in a while is not a sin. But is it? because i have a twinge of conscience?

If "lucy in the sky with diamonds" comes on the radio, and i turn it up because i like the song, (even though i know its a likely reference to LSD) and therefore my conscience "twinges," do i sin if i do not change the channel?

The reason i am carrying on like this is because it seems that conscience cannot be the final determiner. if it was, there would be no freedom because any gray area item will produce a twinge of conscience.

your cookie example is different, because for "john" it was not a gray area. he thought (wrongly) that he could not take a cookie but did so anyway. a better example would be that he knows he can have the cookie, but there is only one left and his conscience tells him to leave it for someone else, even though he rightfully can take it.

sorry for carrying on so,

TK