Inform Your 'Faith'

    It ostensibly seems that liberty has been reduced to a misnomer in our day. Liberty is regularly exercised without restraint and without consideration as though it has no moral or ethical antecedent. I would even venture to say it has, in and of itself, been elevated to the ranks of a governing ethical imperative. This malpractice has displaced the role of charity/love, altruism,  and  being selfless all of which are encapsulated in the second greatest commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" while it also betrays the Golden Rule to "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." I will address this in two installments.

    The primary aim of this adumbrated work is to address the christian’s liberty. Let it be known that the present writer is confessedly a staunch subscriber to the Apostle Paul’s own position as admitted in his letter to the church at Rome, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself,” (Rom. 14:14a; cf. 14:20d), and again in a rhetorical question posed to those at Corinth, “Do we not have the right to eat and drink?” (I Cor. 9:4).

    Nevertheless the reality of the believer’s right or liberty is not here in question nor will focused effort be exerted to establish or defend those rights. Instead, preponderance will be given to the proper exercise and administration of those rights respectively. Primary attention will be given to Chapter 14 of Romans in order to lay the appropriate groundwork while references will be incorporated from I Corinthians 8, 9, and 10 and James in order to underscore the primary proposition.

    Inasmuch as holy writ, especially Pauline nomenclature, affirms certain liberties a believer may enjoy it also describes and gives allowance for what Paul characterizes as “the weaker person,” (Rom. 14:2, I Cor. 8:11; cf. I Cor. 9:22), with a “weak conscience,” (Rom. 15:1, I Cor. 8:7, 11, 12). Conversely to the extent that Scripture affirms the presence of the latter it must be borne in mind that in no way does their posture or “weaker conscience” nullify nor determine what a believer’s rights are, “for why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?” (I Cor. 10:29).

    This truth notwithstanding, scripture does incontrovertibly advance that how a believer, who maintains those permissible liberties, exercises his or her respective rights, is far more paramount than the mere enjoyment of them. Indeed, the exercise thereof is predicated upon cognizance and proper consideration of the weaker neighbor. To be nonchalant in matters of exercising liberties and rights can lead to conduct unbecoming of the Gospel and also undermine the church’s communion.

  Paul most trenchantly develops an ethic or modus vivendi germane to the proper exercise of liberty in his correspondence to the church at Rome. After addressing the discriminatory judgments toward others depending on what they eat, drink, or what day a person observes (Rom. 14), Paul concludes that refrain is necessitated under certain circumstances and for certain reasons (Rom. 14:13, 16, 19, 20-22, 15:1-2). Priority is to be given to those, “fully convinced in their own mind,” (Rom. 14:5) regarding what they abstain from (Rom. 14:3) due to their conscience. Concerted effort is to be made in avoiding stumbling blocks (Rom. 14:13, 20-21), hindrances (14:13) and grievances (14:15).

    To be culpable of any of these three effects is tantamount in Paul’s mind to, “no longer walking in love,” (Rom. 14:15). Of course Paul relates walking in love to not wronging one’s neighbor and thus fulfilling the law (cf. Rom. 13:9-10). It is incumbent upon a contemporary reader of this letter to not isolate this passage for mere topical use. Paul’s ancient readers would have juxtaposed the former phrase (Rom. 14:15) with the phraseology of 13:9-10; especially considering he elaborated on that “second greatest commandment” the very pericope preceding this chapter. There is the effect that this commandment is the latent undercurrent that is informing Paul’s practical resolutions interspersed throughout Chapter 14. Paul’s assertions are not vacuous nor disconnected inventions of caprice. Instead, they are part and parcel accessible extrapolations of the command to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” applied to the judgments and subsequent discriminatory practices prevailing amongst the Christians in Rome. (This will be explored later.)

    Appropriately so, then, to have a working knowledge of Paul’s prescribed precautions and nevertheless exercise one’s rights without his neighbor in mind is contrary to upholding the law, thus constituting sin. The interests of the weaker neighbor in issues pertaining to liberties or rights are unequivocal. Paul’s prevailing concern is not to merely establish variegated Christian rights or to promote a libertine exercise of those rights as much as it is to acknowledge that both positions (the stronger and the weaker) are viable and to promulgate a cautionary or restrained exercise of the respective Christian rights he does in fact espouse.

    What is more, this Pauline etiquette espouses the suspension of or privatization of rights when necessary consideration is given to the weaker. This, in Paul’s mind is a behavioral imperative and thus binding upon those who have knowledge of their liberty. To be sure, the apostle recognizes, “everything to be clean,” yet despite this admission he posits, “The faith you have, keep between yourself and God,” (14:22). This assertion even intimates that attempts to persuade the weaker believer is a violation of the ethic Paul is advancing in this chapter. At the onset of this chapter Paul interjects, “as for the one, who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions,” (14:1). For instance, if a weaker believer were to consider a stronger believer’s argumentation regarding liberty, conclude it to be persuasive and subsequently partake of what his conscience previously forbade though still harboring reticence he sins. For Paul says, “whoever doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin,” (14:23). Indeed, Paul inserts his resolve concerning rights (14:14, 20), yet he no where endeavors to convince or persuade the weaker of those rights. There is an implicit undertone that suggests not to publicize your position or better not to propagandize. According to F.F. Bruce, the weaker, are to be, “not challenged forthwith to a debate about those areas of life in which he is still unemancipated." Nevertheless, the thrust of 14:22 is noticeably particularized and individualized. Paul is directing this assertion to the strong believer at this juncture. “It is as if Paul, in his imagination, is listening to a ‘strong’ believer; one, however, who delights in hearing himself talk. That loud talker is saying, ‘I insist on my freedom; and I say that I will not allow anyone to interfere with that unrestrained freedom of mine,’ etc. So Paul, as it were, answers, ‘You better keep between yourself and God that conviction you have,’” (Hendrickson).

    Parenthetically, this overriding principle is also at the heart of I Corinthians 8. Paul is writing the Corinthians regarding issues of food “offered to idols.” He, of course, explicates that, “an idol has no real existence,” (I Cor. 8:4). Yet he also acknowledges those who do not “possess this knowledge,” (I Cor. 8:7) thus subsisting with a weak conscience (I Cor. 8:7). Due to this converse the Corinthian with knowledge of his rights is to walk circumspectly with regard to public consumption especially (I Cor. 8:10). Paul inculcates for them to refrain from or “take care” of those rights so as to, “not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak,” (I Cor. 8:9). It is glaringly obvious, especially with the illustration he employs, from the points of emphases in Chapters 8 and 9 that public exhibition’s of rights are counterproductive. The overarching thrust of Paul’s tone is on exerting cognitive energy to keep the weaker believer actively in mind prior to exercising one’s liberties or rights. As we shall see though this extends beyond merely restricting one’s liberties.

    Paul employs a hypothetical “what if” scenario in his illustration to underscore the seriousness and necessity of this modus operandi (8:10-11). Therefore, the believer with rights is to expend energy to explore the possible “what ifs” relative to the weaker conscience prior to any exercising of his or her liberty. The strong believer is to relinquish the exercise of any and all rights for the benefit of his neighbor. Paul himself was a practitioner of his own conscientious ethic. The apostle had every right to benefit from the monetary support of the Corinthians in proportion to his ministerial labor (9:6-14). However, he and the others involved in such labors chose not to utilize this right due to the effects such rights may have incurred on those at Corinth (cf. 9:12,15). Paul penned, “We have not made use of this right,” (vs.12) and a few verses following reiterated, “I have not made use of any of these rights,” (vs.15). Did Paul in fact have the right or rights? Indeed! Did Paul exercise his rights? No! The effects of the exercise thereof apparently would not have been beneficial to those his actions would have impacted according to the text. Suitably, Paul refrained from the employment of his rights. Moreover, he indubitably compels the Corinthian believers to follow suit and emulate his example in Chapter 8 as already noted.

    This praxis was evidently lacking in Rome as the church there was splintered and fractured due to theological, cultural, and practical differences. This is evinced in the references to an ostensibly scattered church (ch. 16) and Paul’s admonition for them to, “live in harmony with one another,” and to, “together...with one voice glorify the God and Father...,” (15:5-7). Note, this was interjected after addressing the variegated differences leading to separation thus giving the contextual support for presence of such disharmonious relations within the borders of the church. So, the emphasis on harmony and unity was deliberate verbiage counteracting the discriminatory effects of their differences. The grammatical and literary components of 14:1-15:13 also underscore this purpose as, “Paul accentuates the theme of mutuality,” (Douglas Moo). Additionally, Paul launches into this discussion with an exhortation to “welcome” (14:1) a fellow believer and also culminates with the same phraseology of welcoming one another (15:7). This forms a literary inclusion. The purpose of such a literary device is to clearly establish and magnify the purpose as stated in those phrases at the beginning and end.

    So it is that the inconsiderate exercise if rights aside from the teeming ideological/theological divergence leads Paul to propound a privatization of rights. His assertion, “the faith you have, keep between yourself and God,” (14:22) is not merely ideological but also practical. The practice of associating or identifying with those who share your same outlook on rights can breed exclusivism and segregation.

    Though the church in our day might not accurately reflect the theological contradistinctions in Rome it is still possible to resemble the compartmentalized condition that precipitated from one group eschewing the viable preferences of the other germane to liberties and rights. The church must be acutely aware of this vulnerability. She becomes susceptible to discrimination when the social and congregational dynamic is dictated by one’s rights. It undermines the unity of the church.

    Another aspect of Paul’s modus vivendi here supersedes the simple restraint and privatization of rights. To limit Paul’s ethic here to preventative methodologies that are to be adhered to in order to preclude the infringement of one group’s rights upon another that envisages a weaker conscience fails to ascend to the apex of his advance. For Paul is noticeably more interested in, “what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding,” (14:19) as well as to, “please,” one’s, “neighbor for his good and to build him up,” (Rom. 15:1-2). This will be explored in the following sections.

    Again, the issue fundamentally reduces to how a “strong” believer (Rom. 15:1) exercises his or her rights with the “weaker” neighbor in mind. Although Paul affirms both the stronger and weaker persons’ postures, with admonitions for both interspersed throughout 14:1-12, he amplifies his focus on the stronger believer’s dutiful and ethical responsibility with respect to his weaker neighbor throughout 14:13-15:3, as I already amorphously touched upon. He noticeably launches into this discourse on the grounds of love as inferred from verse 15 (cf. 13:8-10, 15:2). “Paul’s basis of approach to the stronger brother has changed from granting him his position on the grounds of liberty. Now, the appeal is not to liberty but to love, which may call forth a measure of sacrifice,” (Everett Harrison). To be sure, the salient mooring out of which the loving, ethical, and imperative culminating clause, “we who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak,” (15:1) and the comparable underpinnings of Chapter 14 to that affect proceeds from the “second greatest commandment.” Commenting on 15:2, Douglas Moo rightly maintains that, “by using the term ‘neighbor’ Paul makes it clear that he bases his plea to the strong on the love command.” This ethic of love is much more demanding than a superficial restriction of one’s liberties. The latter posture places inordinate stock on “knowledge” as a line of demarcation. Knowledge of rights and knowledge of believers without that knowledge becomes the basis of action. Naturally, then prevention of offense becomes primary. Knowledge transposes the ethic of love and becomes the standard. However, Paul posits, “...we know that ‘all of us possess knowledge.’ This ‘knowledge’ puffs up, but love builds up...” (I Cor. 8:1-3). The standard should be love which recognizes knowledge and subsumes or subjects that knowledge to that ethic of love for, “one who loves does not...adopt an attitude of superior knowledge, and try to act as guardian to the other; he knows that his only guide is love,” (Emil Brunner). The ethic of love is a voluntary choice and action that promotes the place of the neighbor. It is intrinsically sacrificial.

    Paul’s ethic of love does in a real sense infringe upon a believer’s ability to exercise their rights without inhibition. This notion leads Chrysostom to assert, “You see how much he (Paul) insists upon charity (or love). And this is because he is aware that it can do anything. And on this ground he makes somewhat large demand on them.” It is not always the most convenient ethical truth but it is the most profitable and beneficial. To insist upon erecting barriers so that liberties have precedence is incompatible with the biblical rudiments of love. As Emil Brunner postulates, “love does not respect barriers, it transcends them; it means going out towards the other, identifying myself with him; it means ‘loving one's neighbor as oneself,’ the renunciation of one’s natural and just reserve, it means sacrifice.”  

    The prevalent conceptions of selfish individualism and social collectivism that pervade society at large and the church in our day date as far back as ancient Greece and Socrates. These conceptions do not actually inhere within the New Testament construct of communio. The biblical construct of communio views the church as a whole that is comprised of individuals who are inextricably bound by sacrificial love in Christ Jesus who himself embodied this ethic of sacrificial love and charity.  The church abroad needs to again embrace a willful suspense of "liberties" and return to a praxis of selflessness. This praxis was commonplace in the first few centuries of the church and has, since then, receded into the periphery. When liberty is misused it transmutates into tyranny and this is why charity must govern. The individual exercise of liberty without charity is individualistic tyranny!

    This ethic of liberty and charity will be explored more in the next blog.  

“...They boast falsely of liberty, who know not how to make a right use of it."
                                                                                                                 ~ John Calvin