Differences of Opinion, and a Unique Opportunity
It’s a fact that Christians have a variety of opinions about different issues. What is or is not acceptable behavior for Christians? What should be our relationship to the surrounding culture? How should Christians vote? There are some who believe that all Christians should always come to the same answers about all these things. I would disagree though. I believe that Christianity allows for genuine differences of opinion. So how should we handle those things?
The following guidelines are developed from Romans 14.
First, we must be biblical. When the Scripture tells us that a certain behavior is off limits, then we should avoid it. An example of this would be sex outside of marriage. This isn’t up for grabs. We should be on the same page about this one.
That being said, though, most issues that Christians differ over, aren’t clearly addressed in the Bible (or we’d probably agree on them). Therefore, secondly, we must follow our conscience. When the Bible does not specifically address something, we are at liberty to either do it or not do it. But even when we have this liberty, sometimes we have a sense that it is wrong. This might be due to our culture or our upbringing. But, in those cases, we should follow our conscience. If we do something that we think is wrong, then when we do it, we are acting in disobedience.
If we follow these first two steps, then it is likely that we will end up with some disagreements. When that happens, then third, we must respect one another’s convictions. Paul tells us that if we partake of something, we should not despise those who abstain, and that if we abstain, we should not judge those who partake. I think that this is the part where Christians get it wrong most of the time. We’re fine trying to be biblical, and then following our consciences. But then the idea that someone else might come to a different conclusion seems impossible to us. How could anyone possibly disagree with me!? We have to remember that we are not the standard of truth: Jesus is (John 14.6).
So, for example, if you believe that it is wrong to drink alcohol (alcohol is a great test case for this because the Bible does not forbid its use and because some Christians have serious moral reservations about using it), you should not do so. This is fine and commendable. But the moment you expect every other Christian to conform to that standard, you have crossed the line into legalism. Likewise, if you believe that Christians may drink alcohol in moderation you are free to do so. But if you expect all other Christians to follow you and enjoy a drink, you have crossed the line into another sort of legalism. This principle can be expanded to include a variety of behavioral, financial, and even political decisions. It’s fine to have a viewpoint that isn’t explicitly set forth in Scripture. But Scripture forbids you to impose it on others.
On another note, our post-election post generated a lot of attention, and began a somewhat lengthy conversation in the blog comments. This is exactly the sort of thing we want to see. At the end of the conversation, one of the participants asked what we would be talking about next. In order for us to have conversations we need to be interested in the topic. That’s why I’m going to let you decide what’s next. Leave your topic request in the comment section, and (within reason) we will write a blog post dealing with it. But act soon, the offer only lasts until Tuesday at 5 pm.
Posted by: Gene Schlesinger
Wow, I missed out on the last post. It looks like it was a good conversation.
Hmm…how about you write a post on something simple like the sovereignty of God in all things and how it relates to human responsibility…
I wish that many people back in little havelock would listen to that.
Legalism runs rampant.
Hopefully God will soften their hearts.
I got a topic i’d like to ask. It’s a bit selfish, and a little too specific. but here it goes….
I look around my campus here at NCSA, and i frequently see women, extremely passive/feminine boys, and homosexuals. Why are the arts leaving out the masculine men? I don’t believe God gave a command that the arts be led by women, so why is this so?
Topic suggestion:
While I think the topics of sex outside of marriage, and drinking Alcohol would be great and interesting topics to discuss–especially given our differing opinions and back grounds (another interesting one would be the role of Women in the church); I have a different topic we should discuss first.
“What is our canon within the Canon?”
You said “first we must be biblical…” But the bible is a very long and complex collection of stories, writings, letters, laws, poems, songs, genealogies, prophecies, sayings, revelations, oracles, Gospels, and so on. When we read scripture we naturally gravitate towards certain passages and away from others. We develop a subset of verses and stories which hold more importance then others, and in turn affect how we read those other verses. The Bible is God’s word to us, written down by human beings; and all human texts are inherently ambiguous, and subject to interpretation. This means that we are forced to read the Bible as such and not as exact law. So I ask which verses, stories, and books of the Bible are the most important? Which one should we turn to first? And which ones can we regard as irrelevant or outdated? And when the Bible contradicts itself (which is does frequently) how do we resolve such conflicts? How do we glean the right answers from scripture, not just the answers we like? Does every Christians have to read AND UNDERSTAND the whole Bible from “In the beginning when God created…” to “…the grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen” to be able to gain answers and insight from it? Or are we allowed to just read the cliff notes of some sections? And if so, which pericopes?
I know that is a lot of questions for one topic, so I shall simplify:
“What is our canon within the Canon?”
–Liberal minded reader
Liberal minded reader,
We’ll definitely get to your topic. In the meantime, I should say that the elders of 1.21 Church are persuaded that the Bible is the Word of God, Inspired, Infallible, and Inerrant. We do not believe that there ARE contradictions in it. This is not because we are unaware of tensions within the Bible, or that we don’t know the passages to which you would point as contradictions. Instead, we believe that any apparent contradictions can be resolved satisfactorally.
1.21 regards our doctrine of Scripture as a “closed hand” issue (one we’ll go to the mat over). We can field questions about the Bible, of course. But as this is a blog under the auspices of the church, our doctrinal stance needs to be clearly articulated.
Liberal minded reader,
I don’t think I have ever heard the term “canon within the Canon”
Would there be a “canon within the canon within the Canon”?
Where would it stop?
Gene,
I think that was a bit of a cop out on the previous post. Regardless of how you feel about contradictions in the Bible (if you are like me and believe they are there and need to be resolved, or if you are like 1.21 and think that they are there but have already been resolved–by the way I assume you use other verses to resolve those conflicts and not just things you make up off the top of your elders heads) there are still those aspect of the Bible that hold more and those that hold less importance to your beliefs, theologies, and practices of Christianity. So I am asking, “What verses, stories, and sections” are more important? When you preach the Bible, to someone who has never heard it, where do you start? And unless you start with the earth as a formless void then you have inherently (whether you meant to or not) placed particular importance on certain passages over others?
And yes, Marc, you could in Theory have a canon within your canon, with in the Canon, or even a canon, within a canon, within your canon, within the Canon. You can organize the scriptures into whatever fashion you want, from most important to least important, from longest to shortest, from easiest to understand to hardest to comprehend. In fact the Councils that met in the early church who formalized the Canon had to make some of those very decisions. So Marc I’ll ask you this, do you know Why Hebrews comes after Philemon? Or Why Romans comes before first Thessalonians? Because, a lot of thought and energy, by humans, was put into those decisions; and whether you believe that “Bible is the Word of God, Inspired, Infallible, and Inerrant,” or some variation on that, it is important as Christians to understand OUR history, and how the Bible was pieced together is a crucial part of that.
So, Gene, when you evangelize, where do you start? And what do you try to cover in the first 5 minutes? Because unless you are 10 times better then John Moschitta, you can’t do the whole Bible in one conversation.
Peace,
–Liberal Minded Reader
Liberal Minded Reader,
I think you misunderstood me. My clarification on 1.21’s doctrine of Scripture was not my treatment of the canon within the canon. Because the blog speaks for the church, I had to be sure that it was clear where the church stands on contradictions in the Bible. And so I did that right away.
But we will be dealing with the canon within a canon in a separate post all its own.
Later this week, we’ll begin working through the three suggested topics (in the order they were received). Each will get its own post. And I hope that those who suggested them will begin conversations on them.
In terms of my evangelism, I try to start with points of contact. For example, Paul, on Mars Hill spoke about their statue of the unknown god. I try to start with what people are already talking about, and then bring Christ to bear on that situation. The Dutch Reformed Tradition and the Radical Orthodoxy movement are helpful for looking at all of life and culture through the lens of Christ.
So, anyway, be on the lookout for my answer to the canon within the canon.