# Christian Liberty:Agreeing with the weaker brother on large issues



## satz (Jan 18, 2006)

In another thread on if a christian could open a pub, Michael Butterfield argued that for a christian to open a pub would be offending against the weaker brother and not walking in christian love. Hopefully, we can keep comments on the specific issue of pub ownership in the other thread, but his comment got me thinking;

As christians do we also submit to the whims of our weaker 
brothers in large, life decisions? What if you have a christian brother who feels that your vocation is ungodly or worldly? What if that brother objects to the woman(or man) you are about to marry for no good biblical reason? What if he feels that christians should all turn vegetarian?

Now, i know those are extreme examples, but isn't the point of Pauls teaching in Romans and Corinthians about christian liberty that the weaker brother's opinion is unreasonable? In 1 Corinthians, Paul has just finished explaining that meat offered to idols is nothing. Yet he goes on to tell his readers that if anyone confronts them with that unreasonable opinion ( which would be doubly unreasonable now, since those who held to it would be defying Paul) they should submit in order to avoid stumbling their brothers.

How do these principles apply to big life decisions? To never drink alcohol in public, go to a bar or go to the movies may be painful for some of us, but in the big scheme of life, they aren't all that big a deal. But what if we have christian brothers who have opinons on your job, marriage etc. Do we make provision for them?


----------



## CalsFarmer (Jan 18, 2006)

I have seen devastation from the rule of the weak. 

ASk yourself this: If a weaker brother thinks my vocation ungodly...is he going to support me and pay my bills? Ask him if he will....( I have seen and heard this too from my family ALL the time).

BTW my vocation is heavy aircraft techincal consulting..not ungodly but surely a manly thing....I have no use for weak people (like my family) that try to impose their will upon my faith, homelife or businesses.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 18, 2006)

We should be mindful of a weaker brother, to be sure.

If a weaker brother comes to my house, I don't have to drink in front of him. And I don't have to talk about the pub I may own down the street.

However, Christian love demands that we don't leave our brethren in weakness! If we know we have a weak brother, then we need to seek out a time to educate him regarding Scripture. SHOW HIM the Biblical difference between drunkenness and drinking unto the glory of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31). SHOW HIM the Biblical difference between a pub (or whatever) that is run by the world, and one that is run according to the will of God.

Then, after that, he will have no excuse for remaining a weaker brother in that respect. If he rejects the teachings of Scripture, then his problem is rebellion, not weakness.




Also, we need to carefully understand Paul's meaning in Romans 14, when he speaks of a "weaker brother". A weaker brother is NOT merely someone who disagrees with what you are doing. Rather, a weaker brother is someone *who would be tempted to sin* if they saw you partaking of certain Christian liberties.

Now, just for example, consider one elder of a church I know as a friend. He thinks drinking alcohol is wrong. He does not even approve of a single glass of wine with a meal. And he is very strong in his conviction. You could drink right in front of him, and he would not be tempted to go against his conviction. Therefore, he is NOT the "weaker brother" of Romans 14. Rather, he is simply someone with an opposing view of a certain doctrine in Scripture. He knows that I drink. And if he walks into a restaraunt and "catches" me drinking, I have no reason to be embarrassed, ashamed, or repentant. He is not a "weaker brother", because my actions are not tempting him to go against his conscience in this area.


----------



## satz (Jan 18, 2006)

Thanks Joseph and Grace for the comments.

Joseph, i agree that we must seek to educate our weaker brothers, and i agree with the definition of weaker brother in your last paragraph. However, we know that it is a simple fact that not everyone can be brought to the truth on every matter. Remember again the focus off my question is not a brother asking you to do something trivial as not drink in a restaurant. It is if they have a problem that would cause you to make large changes in your life. 

I believe not everyone who disagrees with you deserves the kind treatment of romans 14 ( matt 15:12-14, 1 tim 4:3). Notice how Paul said he would never eat meat if it would cause his brother to stumble, yet he says there are some who preach against meat whom he condemns as preaching the doctine of devils.

I am just wondering wear we draw the line?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 18, 2006)

This may be a good basic guideline:

1) You need to have good reason for thinking what you are doing would stumble a particular brother. If you try to protect every potential brother against all hypothetical stumbling, then you couldn't do anything at all. Thus, you must have a specific brother in mind, who has a specific danger of stumbling in a particular area.

2) Once you have settled #1, you still don't have to quit doing what you're doing altogether. But you do need to be sensitive about your actions _when in the presence of the weaker brother_. Talk about the action if you want to, and make sure to bring up the Scriptures. But DO NOT encourage the weaker brother to join you, so he doesn't wound his own conscience. Make sure you tell him NOT to do anything that goes against his conscience. For example, you could tell him what the Bible says about drinking, childrearing, career, or whatever. And you could even tell him what you do. But you would want to reinforce that *he* would be sinning if he did something he personally felt was wrong. --- In other words, the topic does not have to be hidden; you just want to MAKE SURE you do nothing that tempts him to commit personal sin.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jan 18, 2006)

I was thinking about this very issue as I was reading the posts in the other thread as well.

One problem with catering to the weak is: they can very prone to change their minds! So you make a provision in one area, then in a year or so, they are taking an opposite stand and you find you needed to make no such provision in the first place.

Also, it seems that the stumbling Paul was talking about was related more to "religious" things. For example, the eating of meat was associated with pagan idol worship and this false worship was the real cause of offense. The weaker brothers thought that somehow they were participating in idol worship by their indulgence in it.

So, if we want to talk "stumbling" with our weaker brothers, then maybe we should make sure that its concerning "worship" and not just every "moral" hangup they may have that differs with our own: ie. alcohol, dating, jobs, money, entertainment, time management, pastimes, movies, etc, etc, etc.

So, in this case, *I'll* be the weaker brother: "Could you guys (my Arminian friends) PLEASE stop using drama teams, cheesy praise choruses, Top Ten lists and other jokes, movie clips, PDL material, etc, during worship services??? Please... its really stumbling me!" 

Seriously!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 18, 2006)

Christopher, you make some REALLY good points!!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 18, 2006)

J.G. Vos, _The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life_:



> Abstinence from things indifferent, while it may proceed from consideration for the weak conscience of a brother, can never proceed from our own conscience, except in the indirect sense that our conscience requires us to be considerate of the weaknesses of fellow Christians; for if a thing be regarded as indifferent, how could the use of it be sinful in itself, or how could we abstain because of our own conscience? The relation of Christian liberty to the conscience is proved by I Cor. 10:25-29, 'Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake; for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If one of them that believe not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake. But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience?'
> 
> The closing words of the above citation need to be emphasized today: 'Why is my liberty judged by another conscience?' Why should my liberty, in those things in which Christ has left me free, be subject to the judgment of an individual brother's conscience, or to the collective judgment of the conscience of a church assembly or judicatory? Let us ask ourselves in all seriousness, what right has any person or power on earth to bind the conscience of the Christian in matters in which Christ has declared that conscience to be free under God? The very heart of the Scripture teaching concerning the use of things indifferent is that the Christian is free to use or to abstain from using such things, according to his own conscience, and that for his use or abuse of this freedom he is accountable to God. The moment that specific rules are made by men concerning things indifferent, the moment that any man or body of men requires of the Christian abstinence from things indifferent for religious or moral reasons, at that moment liberty has become bondage, and the conscience, left free by God as to things indifferent, has become enslaved to the commandments of men. At that moment abstinence ceases to be voluntary and becomes obligatory, and the entire Scripture teaching on this subject is utterly perverted.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 18, 2006)

FYI and perhaps of interest. See citations on the use of things indifferent and liberty of conscience from works by George Gillespie and James Durham in the paper below.
Indifferent Imaginations.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Also, we need to carefully understand Paul's meaning in Romans 14, when he speaks of a "weaker brother". A weaker brother is NOT merely someone who disagrees with what you are doing. Rather, a weaker brother is someone *who would be tempted to sin* if they saw you partaking of certain Christian liberties.
> 
> Now, just for example, consider one elder of a church I know as a friend. He thinks drinking alcohol is wrong. He does not even approve of a single glass of wine with a meal. And he is very strong in his conviction. You could drink right in front of him, and he would not be tempted to go against his conviction. Therefore, he is NOT the "weaker brother" of Romans 14. Rather, he is simply someone with an opposing view of a certain doctrine in Scripture. He knows that I drink. And if he walks into a restaraunt and "catches" me drinking, I have no reason to be embarrassed, ashamed, or repentant. He is not a "weaker brother", because my actions are not tempting him to go against his conscience in this area.



This is a good point, but allows for the bringing up of another significant, related point as well: We agree that a weaker brother is someone who would be tempted to sin by what we are doing in front of him. And while it may be true in many cases that a brother such as the one you described above would not be tempted to go against his conscience, what he _would_ be tempted to do even in those cases is to pass unbiblical judgment on you, even if it is only in his mind - and passing such judgment, I assume we agree, _is_ a sin, and it is one that the weaker brother would not have been tempted to commit had we not partaken of alcohol in his presence.

Now, I fully agree with you that we should try and reason with him from the Scriptures regarding moderation and liberty; but that is decidedly different from partaking in his presence while he has yet to respond to such - especially because of what I highlighted above.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 18, 2006)

There is a good back and forth about the same topic on the thread entitled Causing your brother to stumble (Romans 14).

The subject at hand has alot to do with defining _exactly_ what it means to "cause a brother to stumble" or to "offend" a brother.

Like I posted on the thread linked above, I agree with Charles Hodge second definition (underlined) which I believe is the same view that Biblelighthouse is portraying:



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Charles Hodge sums up the two views in his comments on Romans 14:20:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## non dignus (Jan 19, 2006)

I was visiting Trinidad with my Pentecostal pastor and his wife. I was about 2 years old in the Lord. At some point my feeble brain registered that I was the only person wearing shorts. (this wasn't in church- that would have been really bad) 

My question: Do you think it was cultural to larger Trinidad? If it's really hot and muggy how far do we go to accommodate a weaker brother? Can a weaker brother be older than 5 years in the Lord, or a pastor of a church? At what point do you figure the 'weaker brother' is not weak, he is just a legalistic brother?

[Edited on 1-19-2006 by non dignus]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> There is a good back and forth about the same topic on the thread entitled Causing your brother to stumble (Romans 14).
> 
> The subject at hand has alot to do with defining _exactly_ what it means to "cause a brother to stumble" or to "offend" a brother.



Does "strong/weak in the faith" indicate some matter of conviction? 

For example, can a teetotaler fundamentalist Baptist brother with strong convictions/opinions on the matter of beverage use of alcohol be considered "weak in the faith"? Or does "weak in the faith" indicate an unsettled opinion based on lack of wisdom/knowledge of the Word of God/conviction of the Holy Spirit?

For the truly weaker brother, does seeing me enjoy a beer have more of a negative impact than knowing I enjoy a beer? If they ask, "do you drink", am I now compelled to say something like, "I did until now that you asked, but from now on I won't until you are no longer 'weak' "? Would I now, because they have asked, even be compelled to abstain in my private life?

[Edited on 1-19-2006 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## satz (Jan 19, 2006)

Thanks for all the replies people.

As some have posted above, i don't think you would ever be forced because of a weaker brother to actually say you agree with him. No one but God can ever force you to say you think drinking alcohol is wrong. The issue under consideration here is not partaking of the questionable thing in the presence of the weaker brother if it would stumble him.

As for abstaining , private, that is a challenging question, but in the end i do not think we need to. In 1 Cor 10 Paul does not tell the corinthians to abstain from possible idol meat just because someone might see them and be offended. He tells them to abstain in that circumstance if a real brother actually comes up to them and makes an issue of the matter.

I do think that once a man sets himself up as a teacher, he does seem to not fall into the category of the weaker brother within the context of 1 Cor 8-10 and Romans 14. Jesus didn't show any consideration to Pharasees holding to too-strict sabbath applications. In 1 Timothy, Paul says those who preach against meat and marriage are not 'weak' but are instead preaching the doctrines of devils. In colossians he also condemns those who preach 'touch not, taste not, handle not'.

Every christian with a flesh nature has a tendency to despise who weaker in faith than him and want to flaunt their liberty and knowledge over them. We must guard ourselves strictly against this. But i do not think Paul's teaching on christian liberty means that christians are to be subject to the whims of every and any man who claims the christian name and objects to a particular something.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I think that Gill's comments on "weak in the faith" are helpful here:



> This address is made to the stronger and more knowing Christians among the Romans, how to behave towards those that were inferior in light and knowledge to them, with regard to things of a ritual and ceremonial kind: and by "him that is weak in the faith", is meant, either one that is weak in the exercise of the grace of faith, who has but a glimmering sight of Christ; who comes to him in a very feeble and trembling manner; who believes his ability to save him, but hesitates about his willingness; who casts himself with a peradventure on him; and who is attended with many misgivings of heart, faintings of spirit, and fluctuation of mind, about his interest in him: or one that is weak in the doctrine of faith; has but little light and knowledge in the truths of the Gospel; is a child in understanding; has more affection than judgment; very little able to distinguish truth from error; cannot digest the greater and more sublime doctrines of grace; stands in need of milk, and cannot bear strong meat; is very fluctuating and unsettled in his principles, and like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine: or rather one that is weak in his knowledge of that branch of the doctrine of faith, which concerns Christian liberty; and that part of it particularly, which respects freedom from the ceremonial law: it designs one, and chiefly a Jew, who though a believer in Christ, and an embracer of the other truths of the Gospel, yet had but very little knowledge of Gospel liberty; but though that believers were to observe all the rituals of the Mosaic dispensation, not knowing that they were abolished by Christ. The phrase is Jewish; it is (m) said,





> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> For example, can a teetotaler fundamentalist Baptist brother with strong convictions/opinions on the matter of beverage use of alcohol be considered "weak in the faith"? Or does "weak in the faith" indicate an unsettled opinion based on lack of wisdom/knowledge of the Word of God/conviction of the Holy Spirit?



I think it could mean both (perhaps?) although I think it more applicable to the latter. The only way I could see the first example being considered a brother who is "weak" is if you caused him to sin against his conscience by your drinking. In other words, this Baptist has strong convictions about drinking, but they are weakened when you drink in front of him.



> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> For the truly weaker brother, does seeing me enjoy a beer have more of a negative impact than knowing I enjoy a beer? If they ask, "do you drink", am I now compelled to say something like, "I did until now that you asked, but from now on I won't until you are no longer 'weak' "? Would I now, because they have asked, even be compelled to abstain in my private life?



Short answer is, I don't think so. I think that this area of Christian liberty is to remove temption from the weaker brother, but that does not mean giving it up in private, or forever. I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think it reduces itself to absurdity in the end.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jan 19, 2006)

> Verse 22a is another exhortation to the strong and means that they are not to parade and protest their rights and liberties to the detriment of the weak and with the evil consequences delineated in the preceding verses. The words "œhave to thyself before God" is another way of vindicating the strong in the possession and conviction of their liberty (_cf._ vss. 14a, 20b). They have this conviction in the presence of God and may not surrender it. But they are not to brandish it to the destruction of others. Verse 22b is a further corroboration of what is implicit in the preceding clause, as just noted. It is a particularly forceful way of commending the intelligent and mature faith whereby a Christian entertains no scruples in eating and drinking. It is not a future blessedness of a clear is reflected o but, as Gifford says, "œthe present blessedness of a clear and undoubting conscience". In pronouncing the strong believer "œblessed" there is, however, no retraction of the leading plea of the passage. It is, rather, the blessedness of this state of mind and conscience that underscores the necessity of exercising the restraint which the weakness of others constrains."”John Murray, The Epistle to The Romans



Dear brothers, it is my contention some may love brandishing more than they love their brother (Rom. 14:15). We love our liberty more than we love our brothers. Oh, sure, we can talk all day about what the weaker brother needs and how he ought to be taught, but the simple fact of the matter is that some hold to their scruples just as strongly as we hold to our liberties. The Apostle, however, lays the restraint upon those who are called the strong in such matters as eating and drinking.


----------



## satz (Jan 19, 2006)

Thanks again folks.

I think some worthy comments have been made here, though i must i say i think the main point of my OP remains unaddressed, at least directly. Well, maybe i was unclear in the phrasing. Anyhow...

Does our consideration for the weaker brother involve making big changes in our life? If your brother is offended would you quit your job, or retrain from marriage? Move to another city?


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jan 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Thanks again folks.
> 
> I think some worthy comments have been made here, though i must i say i think the main point of my OP remains unaddressed, at least directly. Well, maybe i was unclear in the phrasing. Anyhow...
> ...



I think your question needs more specificity. I do think, in all do respect, that you are reaching once you get beyond what has already been addressed. I would say, however, that it is possible that a job change could be in the realm of possibility. Even that would need to be carefully and closely delineated.


----------



## satz (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by satz_
> ...



Hi Michael,

I am sorry but i don't quite understand your phrase 'you are reaching once you get beyond what has already been addressed'. Prehaps you could elaborate a little?

As for specifics, i am not dealing with any real issue in my life now, but here's a hypothetical; From what i've seen most on this board think that being in the military is a perfectly honourable occupation ( for the purposes of this hypothetical lets ignore all that stuff about oaths etc). So assume we have a christian man in the military and a brother holding to pacifist notions confronts him and makes a fuss of it. Should our man quit his job to avoid offending the weaker brother?

edit: i reread the thread and realized that based on the definition of 'weaker brother' Joseph and others have posted, well, it would be quite unlikely that anyone would be tempted to join the army, but lets just asssume it became an issue. Should a christian man quit his job to accommodate this brother?

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by satz]


----------



## satz (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> What does Paul mean by not letting one's good be spoken of as evil? Sincerely...



Josh, this is off the cuff so you may want to take it with a grain of salt.

I think what Paul means is that if we exercise valid christian liberty in front of a weaker brother, that brother will think we are sinning and thus think we are doing evil.

hence, the good ( an act within the bounds of christian liberty ) becomes spoken of as evil ( by the person who thinks it is a sin ). Paul speaks these words in the context of abstaining for the weaker brother, so he seems to be saying don't exercise your liberty when the weak will think of it as you doing evil.

 I am open to correction as always.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 20, 2006)

Ken Gentry has a good commentary on Romans 14 in _God Gave Wine_. I will extract some of his comments on Rom. 14.21 (pp. 121-124):



> Romans 14:21: It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
> ...
> Along with Romans 14:13 and 1 Corinthians 8:13 this verse is one of the more misunderstood verses in the debate over Christian liberty. Some would wrongly understand this verse to mean that all Christians everywhere and under all circumstances are obligated by Holy Writ to maintain a life of total abstinence. But we can see that this is patently false by a quick reading of the text. Do the same people insist upon total abstinence from _meat_ based on the text? Paul does say, after all: "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine."
> 
> ...



[Edited on 1-20-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 20, 2006)

Good quote Andrew. 



> _Originally posted by satz_
> Does our consideration for the weaker brother involve making big changes in our life? If your brother is offended would you quit your job, or retrain from marriage? Move to another city?



In all likelyhood, I don't think so. In order for this to apply to these "life" decisions, the decisions would have to cause a weaker brother to sin against his conscience. I'm not saying that this is impossible, but highly unlikely.

If these decisions are merely making a brother upset, because he doesn't think you should do it, then I don't think that these are grounds for abstaining. Explain to your brother politely that you disagree with his reasoning, and that you will do x,y,z based upon your liberty in Christ. 

There should always be a hearty attempt to keep harmony between brothers, but that does not mean caving in to every demand that people make...if so you will be torn in a million directions for the rest of your life trying to please everybody.

 for what it's worth.


----------



## satz (Jan 20, 2006)

Thanks Andrew, that is a helpful quote.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 21, 2006)

I gather from Paul that the weaker brother is weak because his faith is weak. In other words, he is transitioning from the world to the church, or he is brand new to the church. So we shouldn't make an occasion for Satan to deceive him into leaving the church before he is fully established in her. 

But we ought to educate the weaker brother, not destroy our liberty. At some point, and early on, he's got to grow out of his weak faith.

A man should definitely NOT change his job if he isn't sinning in it. The weaker brethren do not set ethical standards; that would be like the tail wagging the dog.


----------

