On “standards”
Now that my little sister is a freshman in Bible college, the challenges to things I’ve made clear that I believe are starting to come. It’s refreshing if for no other reason than to make sure the old mind is still working. What follows is my response to my sister’s suggestion that my brother and I read Romans 14 and report back. Quote marks start here.
Romans 14 is a pivotal chapter that all young Christians should be taught correctly instead of the endless “standards” propaganda. In particular, verses 13-23 should be pounded into their heads. Let me explain, since you’re probably thinking that this passage and “standards” propaganda go hand in hand. No, “standards” is a direct violation of I Timothy 4:1-4 and in my opinion has no place in a Christian’s vocabulary, at least with the intended meaning.
Legalistic Christians point to verses 13-15 as proof texts for any number of rules and regulations they wish to set up. Since alcohol consumption is evidently on some people’s minds, I’ll use that as a good example.
According to the text, there is no problem with whatever it is you wish to imbibe as long as it doesn’t cause a stumbling block (vs. 13), hurt your own conscience (vs. 14), or grieve a brother in Christ (vs. 15). With a few exceptions, no one I know would argue this rather simplistic paraphrase. Since I’m usually better at asking questions than answering them, let me ask a few and then move on in the passage.
- Is causing a person to argue their disagreement with your actions the same as causing a stumbling block?
- Is causing a person to become indignant or angry because of their disagreement with your actions grieving a brother?
I believe that a great deal of misinterpretation happens with these verses because people mistake their personal feelings for something that has any value at all in interpreting Scripture. Let me be clearer: if I cause you to become upset because you don’t drink and don’t believe I should, you need to reread I Timothy 4. Romans is clear that your desire to see others behave as you do is itself sin.
So what does the passage mean? As in many similar cases, it is best interpreted at face value: if my actions cause you to sin against your own conscience (vs. 13), are in violation of my own conscience (vs. 14), or cause genuine grief (perhaps because of the way I flaunt them, for instance) to you (vs. 15) - I’m wrong. Remember, using “grief” to disguise I Tim. 4-style legalism doesn’t fool God. Read on.
Verse 16 strengthens what I’ve already said.
Verse 17 is important in that it outlines the reason that fighting over such temporal things is to be avoided. Is the kingdom of God an earthly affair that is to be concerned with what its members are eating and drinking? No way. “Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men (vs. 18).” Verse 19 sums it up well:
So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
How can we be pursuing peace when the only “theological” issues we care about are “standards” related? Though I have strong opinions on what is appropriate music in corporate worship, far be it from me to ever cause dissension in Christ’s church over something so petty and biblically undefined.
I’ve actually heard verse 19 and others used in the opposite way - that those who drink or listen to rock music, etc., destroy the unity of the church. In my experience, I have never seen an individual who enjoys God’s gift of wine, for instance, ascend to the pulpit and proceed to tear down all teetotalers in the name of “standards.” I have never heard a musician in a rock band claim that sacred and classical music lovers are serving the devil. I have heard the reverse too many times to number. Is that pursuing peace?
The remaining verses (vs. 20-23) are mostly a recap of what Paul had just stated. The word “food” in verse 20 could be substituted for “music” or “drink” and keep its meaning in the context. The issue of conscience is further addressed, emphasizing that if something offends your own conscience or causes your brother to offend his, you should abstain.
End quotes go here. That’s my thoughts on Romans 14 in a nutshell. Simply put, stick with what the passage actually teaches. You’ll be a happier disciple of Christ and the Church will be stronger.
20. September 2007 at 09:42
I get to be first! I was actually reading over this (I’m Nate’s little sis) and I found much the same thing. I don’t know what Nate’s opinion of standards is, but my definition is the rules that I have personally set for my life based upon my convictions. I don’t believe in drinking; therefore, if I drank, it would be sin, because that is based on my convictions and my standards. Nate’s standards are different, based upon different convictions. For him, drinking is okay and actually a “good” thng. For either of us to impose on the other would be wrong. End of story.
20. September 2007 at 09:53
Bravo!
20. September 2007 at 09:55
Actually I have heard rock musicians who tear us ultra-conservative people down. We are “close-minded,” we don’t love enough, we are too strict, we have too high of standards, etc.
20. September 2007 at 20:29
For the record, my “bravo!” was in regard to the statement “For him, drinking is okay…” It was not directed at the part about your drinking being “sin, because that is based on my convictions and my standards” or anything before that.
I’m talking about conscience here, not standards. Standards are rules that people set up, whether for themselves or others, and have nothing to do with conscience. The New Testament makes it clear that failures of conscience have to do with ignorance of God’s grace. So, to set up rules for living that are based on a faulty conscience is absurd. Yes, don’t violate your conscience. No, don’t develop “convictions” based on nothing but your conscience. Develop real beliefs based on nothing but Scripture. Tell me what happens when your conscience no longer sees any problem with alcoholic consumption (or any other topic) because of your study of Scripture, yet your conviction/standard that you’ve been so proud of all this time won’t allow you to change your actions. Now you’re living a hypocritical life and cannot be fully glorifying God.
If your conscience is weak in an area and I cause you to violate it, that is sin for me. However, if your conscience knows full well that your standard is extra-biblical and is merely a pretense, then you are the one at fault. I don’t give a flip of a wooden nickel about offending someone’s standards or so-called convictions. The Bible never directs me to.
20. September 2007 at 20:40
I’m sorry. I forgot that the word “conviction” might mean something different to you. To me, a conviction is based on careful study and application of biblical principles and truths. It really has nothing to do with my opinion; it has everything to do with God’s word.
20. September 2007 at 20:56
But then your issue with drinking couldn’t be called a “conviction” by your own definition since Scripture, that you would’ve done careful study and application of to develop said conviction, does not condemn drinking. So, if Scripture isn’t condemning it, who is? (besides the law of the land until you’re 21)
Sidenote: if something is condemned in Scripture, it doesn’t fall into this discussion at all. It is sin - conscience, standards, and convictions be damned.
20. September 2007 at 21:19
What makes you right and the rest of us wrong? Sorry to disappoint you, but I have been studying this subject since I was fourteen. I have read your blogs, I have consulted godly men, and I have spent some time just meditating on the subject. But before that, I spent a lot of time studying out the subject in the Bible. Do not assumed that just because you disagree with me that you are right, or that you are the only one who has studied it in the Bible.
20. September 2007 at 21:23
Besides, if I drank, I would lose my testimony. The unsaved world expects me to be different from them. If I told them that I drank, I would have no chance to ever witness to them. That alone would cause me to abstain from it forever.
But of course, if the unsaved whom God calls are going to be saved anyway, I guess it doesn’t matter anyway does it? Do you really believe that?
20. September 2007 at 21:57
First, I went ahead and turned off comment moderation. It’s not working correctly. When, not if, I start getting spammed, I’ll have to activate Akismet.
“Testimony” is another of those catch phrase words that young fundamentalists grow up thinking they can just throw into a discussion and shazaam - insta-win! Are there two z’s in shazzaam? Nope.
Anyway, your definition of “testimony” means that you would criticize Christ for eating and drinking with sinners. According to my understanding of Scripture, identifying with the Pharisees is considered a bad thing. Please point to one occasion of a godly man or woman in Scripture that was commended for refusing to drink wine with sinners. Now, honestly count how many times Jesus ate and drank with them and how many times He chastised those who frowned upon it.
A proper testimony with the lost is NOT one of aloofness and condescension. The unsaved world actually could care less if you’re different from them or not. Know why? Because for some reason they know better than most Christians that we are all exactly the same, no matter the facade we hide behind. Don’t pretend that your rules make you better or different than anyone else. You are nothing. I am nothing. God’s grace is all that matters, so don’t muddy the waters by making the unsaved think they’ll have to conform to some ridiculous set of man-made rules if they choose to follow Christ. In many cases I’ve come across, the unsaved know the Bible as well as any of us. They know it doesn’t condemn most things that churches say it does, which is why they won’t go near a church. How is that a good testimony?
I hate it when people claim to read minds, but since I came from the same family as you and was raised nearly the same way, I’m going to take a guess based on my experience. My guess is that when you talk about losing your testimony, you really mean losing your reputation with your family, church, school, friends, etc. Trust me, when I first started studying out some of these issues, that was a fear of mine, too. You must get the mindset that you just don’t care what people think. If the Bible teaches it, you’ll believe it no matter what. Once you have that “bad attitude” down, you can really start finding the good stuff in the Bible. At least, that’s how it worked for me.
20. September 2007 at 21:59
Oh, maybe only 2 a’s and 2 z’s: shazzam. Huh.
20. September 2007 at 22:00
Waiting for the attack on “choose to follow” above… :)
22. September 2007 at 20:39
By testimony I mean that which shows through me of Christ. Yo man, I work in a very ungodly place I can think of. The people I work with respect me because I’m different. I don’t drink, smoke, or go to what they would consider a party. My boss didn’t want me to leave, because I was the best worker she had, and she flat out told me thought it was because I am a Christian. My friends at work used to start to invite me to their parties, but then they would say, “oh, you are a Christian, you don’t do stuff like that.” They weren’t turned off by the fact that I didn’t “do stuff like that;” in fact, it opened up the way for me to witness to some of them. Do you really think the unsaved man doesn’t notice that.
I will tell you something we’ve been discussing in our Christian Life class. We were talking about stuff not necessarily being wrong in and of itself, but because of the culture it is considered wrong. I mean, like in some other cultures, it would be wrong to do some of the things we do in America; but things we consider wrong here aren’t in other places. Our teacher read us part of a sermon from like the 1920s. The preacher was preaching against women wearing red and chewing bubble gum, and we’re all like, Huh? But then Mr. Trainer explained it to us. Back then, at least in New York City, if you were wearing red, you were identifying with the prostitutes, and if you chewed gum, you were basically saying, “here I am! I’m available.” So, to wear red or chew gum back then would have been wrong for a Christian, not because red is wrong or because gum is of the devil, but because of what they were associated with. In Germany, wine is not considered wrong or bad. Most pastors drink it. But in America that not the case. Except for a few people here and there like you, drinking is considered wrong.
Now, does the Bible say drinking is right or wrong? There are passages to point both ways, just like on everything that people debate on from the Bible. But here’s something I just thought of: the Nazarenes were considered wholly dedicated to the Lord, and they would not touch “strong drink.” I can think of worse people to model my life after than those who are completely dedicated to God.
Food for thought. Have fun with it.
22. September 2007 at 20:43
And I have never cared much about what people think, especially, I’m ashamed to say, my family. If I did, I wouldn’t even be here. I would be at home working, being a good little girl, not wanting to work at a camp or anything like that, if I cared about what my family thought.
And do you really think a true friend would drop me if I went out and had a drink? If so, they wouldn’t be a true friend, would they, and I could live without them.
22. September 2007 at 23:22
What cracks me up is the complete diversity of arguments used by fundamentalists, depending on the issue. There’s no consistency. Your “culture trumps Scripture” argument may sound great and make sense, but guess what? Chewing gum is not sin now, then, in this country, in China, anywhere. Neither is wearing red, smoking, drinking, etc. Hey, in our culture, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Rock n Roll, but you fundamentalists won’t touch that one with a ten foot pole. Once you escape the small pond that is independent, fundamental, Baptist, Greenville-is-our-Rome, you’ll start to realize that most Christians partake of wine. This is only an issue in your circle.
Again, a few thousand fundamentalists’ collective opinion doesn’t dictate our culture. I have to give credit, though, to fundamentalists through the years. Starting with prohibition, they’ve been effective in influencing the government to over-legislate alcohol (I’m not referring to drunk driving laws). In some states, like Colorado, you can’t even buy liquor on Sunday. That’s interesting, since drinking wine is one of the key components of one of our two sacraments. I guess you have to make sure you get it on Saturday.
If you really don’t care about what people think, I’d like to hear stories about how you raised your hand in class and asked your teacher a really pointed and difficult question about what’s being taught. I’d like to think that you realize that swallowing it all hook, line, and sinker doesn’t make you a Berean and opens you up to dangerous heresy. A good question for that lesson would’ve been “So you’re saying that the culture is to dictate our beliefs, not the Bible? Doesn’t that mean we should partake of alcohol since society in general sees nothing wrong with moderate drinking?”
In regard to your story about your office, wouldn’t the example of Jesus have been to go to the party with them? As I’ve said before, taking an “I don’t DO that” stand is the very thing that Jesus continually chastised the Pharisees for. Funny that one example specifically is when they frowned upon Him eating and drinking wine at sinners’ parties.
The reason people say “Oh, you’re a Christian, you don’t do that” is because, sadly, they view the church as a bunch of Pharisaical hypocrites. There is an element that takes things to the opposite extreme, refusing to call immorality sin for instance, but if we ever expect to really see people reached with the gospel, we have to stop pretending we’re better than them and that Christianity is all about the things we don’t do. Reach them with the gospel, not a live show.
I do the same thing you do when it comes to parties and lunches, I have to admit. I have yet to go to any functions that take place outside the office, except the company picnic. Everyone knows I’m a Christian and everyone knows why I’m not going. It’s because I go home for lunch, and I’m always busy doing something else on Friday nights when the gang goes out to a restaurant or bar. That’s just coincidence. One of these days I’m going to join them.
That reminded me of one other point. When you’re part of a movement (like fundamentalism) that writes off the majority of true Christianity (Evangelicalism) as bad, it’s easy to think you’re the only Christians out there. Believe it or not, depending on things like what area you live in, where you work, etc., there’s a lot of good Christians out there. Never assume that just because your coworkers drink or smoke or drop a “damn” once in a while that they’re heathens. Get in there with them and enjoy that camaraderie.
23. September 2007 at 08:35
Nazarites (not Nazarenes) are a horrible example. They were never meant as an example for us to follow, and they didn’t just avoid wine, but grapes also. The Nazarite vow was also a temporary vow, not one meant to be followed for life (except in the case of Sampson).
As in Germany, In America, alcohol is not considered wrong. And even if it was, bowing to the unsaved culture for our definition of right and wrong is neither healthy nor biblical; but Nathan dealt with that plenty.
In every case I’ve run into (and there aren’t many), when unbelievers say “oh, you’re a Christian, so you don’t drink or smoke” it is because they have been told by Christians that Christians don’t do that. In reality, all of the unsaved people I know don’t say things like this, and they aren’t the least bit surprised that Christians drink. They’ve never been conditioned to think that they don’t.
Oh, and it wasn’t even fundamentalists who started prohibition. It was secular women’s rights advocates who wanted their husbands not to be drunk all the time (a noble goal). But what can accomplish that? Christ. Instead of standing up for the gospel, the church (again, not necessarily fundamentalists) bowed to the secular pressure.
And as Nathan pointed out, it is sad that so many Christians refuse to associate with unbelievers outside the workplace. This goes completely against the example of Christ. He didn’t just associate with them outside the workplace, but he wined and dined with the worst of them (remember Nicodemus?).
23. September 2007 at 09:38
It’s funny that the Nazarites are really held up by many Christians as the ultimate example of holiness in Scripture. By that definition, they’d never cut their hair or eat raisins.
Before you say, “yes, but…”, think of all the holy men in Scripture who were not Nazarites. Actually, most of them. Plus, God never intended their lifestyle to be a condemnation of the rest of the people. Again, and I can’t say this enough, if you’d like to point to a group of people who chose a “higher standard” to make themselves appear closer to God, the word is Pharisees.
23. September 2007 at 09:48
Oh, and thanks for the correction about prohibition. I remember now who started prohibition, but I believe that the fledgling fundamentalists were very much behind it, and even more so against lifting it. Even today, fundamentalists (and some other similar groups) participate heavily in politics to get heavier restrictions in place. I’d have to do the research and I don’t really care to right now, but if a law about buying booze on Sunday didn’t come from legalistic Christians, where DID it come from? Now a law that prevented all retail on the Lord’s Day, I could get behind that.
I should note that though I don’t believe smoking to be a sin, I personally choose not to because of the scientifically proven health consequences. As in most things, though, moderation is usually the key. Moderate drinking seems much safer, especially since some beverages have specific health benefits. I don’t believe you can say that about smoking. Regardless, I would never argue smoking with someone on the grounds of Christian testimony or sin. I would argue it on its own merits - that it is potentially harmful (right up there with McDonalds).
One thing I’m impressed with, Katy, is that you’re beyond many leaders in fundamentalism in that you haven’t even tried to argue against drinking from the verses in Scripture that address drunkenness. Good for you.
23. September 2007 at 12:16
Oh, and by Nicodemus I meant Zaccheus.
23. September 2007 at 12:19
Original fundamentalism wasn’t what it is today. I would guess that they weren’t actively involved in prohibition, but later caved. I could be wrong.
23. September 2007 at 21:14
Let’s go hang out with the world and party. Let’s do drugs and drink and smoke and do all the other things that they do at parties like that. That’s really “coming out from among them and being separate and touching not the unclean thing.” Or does that not apply to you anymore, because you have Christian liberty?