A PERSONAL MANIFESTO ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY

No, I don?t think I can run the gamut of this subject. No, I don?t think mine is the final or ultimate word (not by any stretch). No, I can?t be as comprehensive as I?d like to be.
But, yes, I will share how I personally draw "the line" and how I think others might be able to, as well.

This has been a developing concern on our site (and others?) since as long as I can remember. Some people want to know if there is a universal, categorical line not to cross in the realm of Christian liberty, some suspect there is and want to know what the line is, and others think ? no, know -- what that line is and are danged happy to tell everyone so.

Let?s define Christian liberty, first of all. I define it as a questionable area of activity of which the Bible says little or nothing about. This does not mean that if the Bible is silent on something that it is necessarily ?okay.? By contrast, neither does it mean that if the Bible is silent on something that it is necessarily best to consider it a sin just ?to be sure.?

And this is where the need for a ?line? comes in. My personal line can be expressed in a flow chart of sorts:
1. Does the Bible explicitly say this is a sin? If yes, abstain. If no, move to question 2.
2. Will this act definitely be a stumbling block to you or others? If yes, abstain. If no, move to question 3.
3. Do you still have doubts? If you consider yourself a mature Christian with a firm grasp of the Bible, a strong relationship with the Lord, and a good understanding of what things will lead you to or cause you to sin, and you still have doubts, you should abstain. When in doubt, leave it out. If all those descriptives fit you and you have no lingering doubts, enjoy ? then answer question 4.
4. After participating, do you regret it? Is there something about this act that now gives you pause despite your previous ignorance about it? Did it actually cause you to sin or be a stumbling block to others? If the answer to any of those is ?yes,? go back through the questions starting with number 1 and re-evaluate your stance.

No, it?s not cut and dry. But neither is the Bible on things like drinking alcohol, dancing, going to non-G movies, reading ?secular? fiction, or ? heck ? playing cards, watching sports, eating at restaurants that serve alcohol to drunks, or countless other things. And I have learned to be wary of those who use the slimmest of prooftexts to argue that they indeed have the final, universal answer that proves any or all of these things are wrong.

First of all, it is arrogant and unbiblical itself to extend one?s personal lines in the realm of Christian liberty to all others without exception. There are too many mature Christians who drink or watch R-rated movies, etc, to be absolutist about things like the ?a little leaven? verse (if such a verse should be applied to the topic of Christian liberty at all). Similarly, analogies like ?a drop of poison ruins the whole jug? or ?a slowly warming kettle cooks the frog unawares? falsely presuppose that all Christians are just spiritually ?weak? and have the same stumbling blocks as the one making the analogy. I have seen several places categorical statements like, ?If you hang out with sinners a lot, you WILL start to sin.? This supposes to know people?s hearts as God does. This supposes human omniscience. This supposes that the one hanging out is just as immature as the critic. What they really should say is, ?I?m uncomfortable with that, because I know that if I hung out with sinners a lot, I would eventually sin.? (Not to mention that everyone eventually sins, and we have a host of influences to do so in our own selves and in other things not as avoidable as ?lost people.?)

Secondly, extending personal lines in the realm of Christian liberty to universal prohibitions is the evidence of one who has not placed wisdom and authority in the hands of the Holy Spirit and the conscience of the biblically mature, but places it in the hands of the one prohibiting himself (despite the prohibitionist?s biblical references, etc.) When Jesus prayed what is called the high priestly prayer, He acknowledged that His followers would inhabit a troubled world, and He asked God not to take us out of it, but to protect us within it. Do we really trust that God will protect us? If we are abstaining from things the Bible clearly calls sins, do we believe that God will ultimately protect us and others when we wander through the biblical ?gray areas??

I cannot tolerate movies explicitly about demonic possession or oppression. They scare me unbearably so. It would, in a very real way, be a sin for me to subject myself to these movies. Yet I have a friend who has no problem seeing movies like The Exorcist. Do I condemn her? Do I consider that a sin? No. Because I recognize that she is a mature Christian, strong in her faith and wise in the Bible, and because obviously such a movie does not affect her in the same way it affects me. Furthermore, I believe that to extend my personal abstention to a categorical sinfulness on her part is to distrust the Holy Spirit?s guidance in her life. This is what Christian liberty means! Trusting that mature Christians act maturely according to their conscience and not judging them when they do not act according to ours.

And thirdly, there seems to be some idea that the observation of sin is sin itself. How can this not be self-evidently fallacious? The observance of sin is not necessarily sin. Personal sin is not something that happens outside me. It is something that happens inside. So if, having seen a nude scene in a movie, I commit adultery in my heart or engage in lust, I have sinned. But if I do not ? and it is actually possible, despite what all of these "accidentally lusting" men want everyone to think ? then it is not. Seeing violence in movies never makes me want to murder someone, or even merely wish someone harm.

And there is a difference in our solicitation of such works and the solicitation of works like p()rnography. I think it is relatively easy to discern what works are designed, marketed, and intended to cause others to sin and what works may cause someone to sin but do not make that its intent. If someone cannot personally discern this difference, he or she is wise to abstain. (Again, see the flowchart.) But discerning viewers understand that a work is not what it is about; it is how it is about it. A movie about sex is not automatically ?wrong;? it would be wrong depending on what it says about sex. Just as the Bible, in its overarching story of redemption and God?s love, includes depictions of gore, perversion, and other immorality. No one can rightly question the context. Likewise, the context of a film or book or TV show is what tempers my judgment of its content. Again, if that?s too hard for some or too bothersome, they are wise to abstain. But again, what is too hard or too bothersome for some may not be too hard or too bothersome for others.

But what about what the Bible does say? What guidance does the Bible give about the things that fall within the realm of Christian liberty?

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. -- 1 Corinthians 10:31
The drawer of universal lines would here suggest that it is impossible to ?glorify God? in the watching of an R-rated movie. (I wonder if this holds true for The Passion film?) But this again presupposes an extension of one?s personal inability to the supposed inability of others. What if the sin portrayed in an R-rated movie causes you to grieve about the presence of that sin in the world? What if the imperfect message of a non-G movie can be ?redeemed? by oneself to others or in one?s own mind to point toward the Perfect Truth all imperfect ?truths? think they are seeking? What if what you find objectionable in a movie you are able to argue against effectively based on your observation? This is called ?redemptive living,? and I believe it brings glory to God. It is a great way to do all to the glory of God.

And the person who makes it an almost automatic discipline to ?take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ? can be very good at viewing all things redemptively, even to the point at which their participation in the things that cause a universal prohibitionist to stumble can bring glory to God.

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. -- Romans 14:23
Here is another prohibitionist prooftext. But taken in its absolute sense, lots of neutral things would be sins (if they are ?not of faith?). Restaurants that serve alcohol are not of faith, so it would be a sin to eat there. Workplaces that are not Christian businesses are not of faith, so it would be a sin to work there. J.C. Penney?s is not a store ?of faith,? so it would be a sin to shop there. Basically, reading this verse in the absolutist sense rules out a host of things that would be ludicrous to consider a sin (although I don?t doubt some do).

And can I mention that the very point of this verse states the opposite of what the prohibitionists think it does? To dismantle some faulty exegesis:
The point of this verse is that if what you are doing is something you doubt is right, you are sinning. (See #3 in my flow chart.) So this is of course binding on one?s personal conscience, but the implicit point is that it is not universal. Basically, what it says is ?whatever you are doing that is considered doubtful by others, if you are doing it in good faith, it is not a sin.? (This presupposes that the thing is not clearly a sin in the Bible anyways ? in this instance, ?eating and drinking.?)
And the context! Oh, the context not only bears my interpretation out, but explicitly rebukes the universal prohibitionist:

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

The emphasis is mine, of course, but I wanted to highlight what I?m trying to say and what prohibitionists consistently miss: ?Keep it between yourself and God.? If you have doubts, fine ? then it is a sin for you to do it. But if I do not, and I can ?eat? in good faith, then you have no right ? biblical or otherwise ? to judge my spiritual maturity or direction.

I humbly suggest those who think otherwise read the entire text of Romans 14. It is categorically against the categorical extension of personal sins from within the realm of Christian liberty.

Parting words:

One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:2-4)