At the Heart of the Matter
In last week’s sermon at Mars Hill Bible Church, Steve Carter used and discussed a diagram which I believe falls at the center of many of the issues we tend to discuss, and where we tend to disagree with many ODM’s. He also uses this as a framework to discuss how we get along with one another and how to deal with the tension which often arises at family gatherings this time of year.
To the left is a diagram which represents a hierarchy of values, where:
1. A = Absolutes (cross-cultural truths)
2. C = Convictions (cultural truths and values systems)
3. P = Preferences (what we like)
The Absolutes are those things which are true in all cultures, and are defined as such within scripture - often written in the Torah and reaffirmed in the gospels and/or the epistles. Such things would include: forbidding murder, theft, adultery, etc.
The Convictions are values which are based upon a person’s convictions, apart from absolutes, or on cultural norms. People who hold these convictions, unless they are conscious of their origin, often mistake these for being absolutes. Paul addresses these types of values in his discussions on meat and idols in I Corinthians 8 and Romans 14:
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
Finally, there are Preferences - things that we like and personally approve of, which are typically based on tradition or simply personal likes and dislikes.
The Conflict
Where problem arise is when we fail to discern one from another. A few weeks ago, a writer asked how it is we might identify false prophets, and one of the most basic tests would be teaching that things which are Absolutes are simply Preferences - moving the lines upward. Conversely, the way to identify legalists and modern-day pharisees is to observe those who seek to make things which are Convictions or Preferences into Absolutes, and to then expect these to be enforced.
It is this second group - those who cannot discern that their convictions are not absolutes, or that their preferences are not Convictions or Absolutes - are the ones Paul refers to as the “weaker” brothers - they do not understand their freedom in Christ, and they seek to control others with that “weakness”.
In a perfect world, there would only be Absolutes and Preferences, but our own short-sightedness and the history of the church in our society have falsely created these convictions, which we now have to live with - striving always to discern what convictions we have and properly diagnosing them as either A or P - all the while, living in a way which does not fall for the conviction without flaunting this in a way that dishonors the body of Christ. It requires love and sacrifice to bring others to recognize the unbiblical boundaries they have placed upon the body without harming their walk with God.
With convictions, it is incumbent on the stronger brothers - those who properly discern the differences between A, C, and P in a situation - to not lead their “weaker” brothers into sin by flaunting their freedom in Christ. As Paul notes, “if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean”, and so for him to go against that conviction would be going into sin. So, abstaining from the particular conviction while in the presence of the weaker brother is required, out of love for them.
With preferences, though, there is no such stricture, and liberty on the part of the ‘weaker’ brother is warranted, out of love.
It’s a Wired, Wired World
Where this becomes much more difficult in practice is in a world that is no longer constrained by the immediate physical confines of where one lives. Without a modicum of love, the stronger brother is at the whim of the ‘weakest’ brother in the world, and constantly open to being falsely accused of “false prophet-hood” by weaker brothers who are convicted that their convictions and preferences be enforced on all brothers as “truth”.
Conversely, the stronger brother can end up flaunting his or her freedom and unlovingly ridicule the weaker brother for their faulty pride in non-absolute “absolutes”. They can also become a bad witness for Christ when they flaunt their freedom in front of a world which wrongly believes that certain convictions define part of what it is to be a Christian.
So where does this bring us in our conversations? Just a few examples:
“Dirty” words? Conviction.
Music Style? Preference.
Abstaining from Adultery? Absolute.
Yoga? Conviction.
Abstaining from homosexual practice? Absolute.
Location of worship (movie theater, cathedral, pub, box-building)? Preference.
Alcohol? Conviction.
Faith-based righteousness? Absolute.
Abstinence from “secular” media? Conviction.
Sharing Sermons? Preference.
Systematic Theology? Conviction.
Abstinence from celebrating Halloween? Conviction.
Women in leadership positions in the church? Conviction, I believe…*
Diagnosing where practice falls - Absolute, Conviction or Preference - is just the first step, but it seems to be the most important one, as our action should spring from this. We already regognize where the ODM’s we come into most frequent contact with tend to completely lack discernment - with ones like CR?N, AM and TP being unable to discern convictions from absolutes, and others, like SoL, being completely unable to discern their own preferences from absolutes.
Thus, our challenge in some of these matters is a) to discern the truth; b) to correct distortions of the truth which lead others down the paths to false convictions and permanent “weaker brother” status; c) to address our own behavior where we might be flaunting freedoms; d) to defend those falsely accused of heresy for violation of of a weaker brother’s conviction, while allowing for constructive criticism if they are flaunting a freedom; and especially e) to do these things in love…
Blessings,
Chris
*This one is actually a good discussion, as it requires discernment to determine whether Paul’s writing was specifically to a church regarding cultural practice (convictions) or a brand new absolute. I believe that there are a number of scriptural clues which point to this being a ‘conviction’, but I also believe that there is enough cultural/traditional enforcement that this freedom be handled carefully, in a manner that does not dishonor those who disagree.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I have to say, along these lines, I loved Wade Burleson’s Personal Holiness: Abstaining from Tea Drinking post…
November 26th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I had a professor at Bible College teach something similar: Biblical, Cultural, and Personal, is what he used to describe it. But it’s the same thing, essentially, as what you’re saying here.
It was very beneficial teaching to me.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Wow. This is one of the best articles I’ve read here for a while. I actually learned a few things.
I’ve seen a chart similar to this before, but instead of a pyramid it was a target, with the absolutes in the bull’s eye and the preferences on the outside.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:50 am
I think the diagram is very helpful, although I find it interesting that all the things listed as absolutes are things of the law (adultery, murder etc…) not the things that set us free from the law (repenting of sins, trusting in the substitutionary death of Jesus etc…)
Any reason for that?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:35 am
A good thought. This can lead to some great nuances, like which preferences should we avoid when brothers consider them convictions and would be offended (or conviction/absolute). Another point of discussion is what attitude should we have about our preferences/conviction/absolute in the face of disagreement.
Also at what point of disagreement about conviction should we withdraw fellowship and at what point of disagreement about absolute should we withdraw brotherhood? A lot of good questions.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Chris: Could you expound upon your labeling “Women in leadership positions in the church…” as a conviction? Restoration Movement churches typically would not agree with that postition (I think I remembered seeing that you are affiliated with that denomination).
November 27th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Concerning this statement above…
–Abstaining from homosexual practice? Absolute.–
…would it be said that this article not only oversteps the bounds, but encourages others to do so?
http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=129
–The Church has to expand its vision and see that gay men and lesbian women, as well as bisexual and transgendered people, are as fully human as anyone else, constituent members of the imago dei that is humanity. In due time the Church’s refusal of full rights for homosexuals may well give way to the acceptance, if not the championing, of gay and lesbian rights, as the Church comes to recognize the full complexity of the human person. And the time may be closer than we think.
If the Church can see that it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals in the secular world it may come to see that it is also wrong to do so in the world of the Church. It will come to see that gay men and lesbian women are already gathered at the altar, and gathered there by Christ, who loves them in their loving of one another. In hope and prayer we may look for the arrival of this joyful vision–
And if so, what is a proper response to this article, and those who have published it?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:31 am
I don’t think the church should respond to every article, just remain true to Scriptures. I believe the church should remain resolute in its stand that homosexual practice is sin and cannot be condoned, but how to treat homosexuals is an issue that needs more Spirit teaching.
Jesus did not stone the adultess woman but exhorted her to cease (free will) and we need to show love to all sinners while still proclaiming what God says.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Jazz,
You wrote:
Actually, no this is not overstepping its bounds. This is a topic we’ve discussed a number of times, like here and here (noting in the first link the distinction between “homosexuality” and “homosexual practice” - the first of which is an inclination/temptation toward a particular sin, whereas the latter is the actual sinful act, itself. With labeling people “homosexuals”, the church has taken to labeling people in regards to their temptation, rather than their sin. I would agree that the church has handled this issue in a ham-handed fashion, but in the same way that lying is a sin, and the church has repentant liars in it, homosexual practice is a sin, but the church should be a welcoming home for repentant homosexuals…
November 27th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Keith,
There is some healthy debate in the Restoration Movement about the role of women in the chuch, and many I am familiar with would - when put to the test - say that this is likely a conviction, but the possibility of it being an absolute is still likely enough that they will try to err on the conservative side.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:50 am
–homosexual practice is a sin, but the church should be a welcoming home for repentant homosexuals…–
If the article were saying that, you may have a point, but it seemed to me more that it was encouraging the accepting of those practicing, not just those repentent who are fighting the temptation.
–I don’t think the church should respond to every article, just remain true to Scriptures.–
That’s fair, let me put it another way, then–if it were only this article or some little non-influential movement, it may be wise to ignore it as a whole, but it’s not, and this article is probably only one of the smaller voices in support of the idea of practicing deviants being accepted by the church.
If that is so, then what does the church’s response need to be in regards to such cultural pressures? Should it’s response be different to those who claim to be on the inside of the church, as opposed to those who are obviously not directly connected to the church?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Ian,
First off, I was not looking for an exhaustive list. Secondly, I was primarily looking for examples of -praxis, rather than -doxis (with faith- vs. works-based salvation sitting right on the boundary between the two). Thirdly, I was looking for topics recently discussed.
Repentence, I would agree is an absolute.
Substitutionary Penal Atonement, on the other hand, I would lump in with ’systematic theology’, as there are other systematic views that are currently held - or that were held for centuries before Anselm’s “Satisfaction Theory”, (circa 1060 AD) which developed into the theory of Substitutionary Penal Atonement. An example of this would be Christus Victor, which is an outgrowth of Ransom Theory from Origen (circa 225 AD). Christus Victor, in some forms, agrees in part with Penal Substituationary Atonement, but sees it as incomplete/reductionistic (in that it only focuses on the salvation of the individual) that takes into account some of Paul’s writings, such as in Colossians 1:
Sorry for the long answer, but you asked…
November 27th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Chris,
this is a great, well thought out post, I have been dealing with this issue with my wife for a while now. She is pretty fundemental about a lot of things and she puts a lot of her confictions in the absolute catagory. She thinks I am going off the deep end because I won’t make a rash judgement on something like she does. I tend to say I am not sure how I stand on things until I have thought them out. Keep up the good work guys you help me to keep the faith even though I can’t stand the business of the faith…..
November 27th, 2007 at 9:02 am
That article is one that as you read it you go from one opinion to the othr about what the author is saying. When at last he says that Paul wrote things he wouldn’t have if he knew what we know today he places the inspiration of Scripture in question.
Is that Mars Hill the one in Michigan?
November 27th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Thanks, Chris.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Rick,
The Mars Hill that this article is from is a seminary in Seattle. It is not affiliated with either of Rob Bell’s or Mark Driscoll’s churches.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Thanks Chris, I did ask! Perhaps using the term substitutionary was opening a can of worms unnecessary to this thread, so whilst for me it is an absolute, I won’t pursue that discussion here. However, regardless of how we understand the death and resurrection of Jesus, surely it should in some way be right at the apex of every true Christian’s “absolutes” category? I understand you weren’t going for an exhaustive list, and I’m not trying to nit-pick, but your selection of absolutes seemed totally law-centric.
Excellent discussion though!
November 27th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I know this is always the must frustraiting things for me in church life, it always seems that people who view all these things as absolutes always end up with the most power, say and influence in the churches I serve in, I always wonder why that is.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Kevin,
I think the reason that that happen is that so many churches seem to really be centered on leaders who have strong, charismatic personalities, and like politicians, these leaders kind of have a gravitational pull that attracts people of like minds. It’s unfortunate, I think, that in many ways the Church-at-large seems to have given up on servant-leadership. Earl Creps has a good article about it on his blog.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
It’s not flaunting freedom to critique people who absolutize non-absolutes.
They are NOT weaker brothers.
They have a STRONG conviction that everyone should adhere to their belief.
That’s not the same thing.
This is a justice issue.
It is called standing against people who are trying to subjugate others to their point of view.
A weaker brother is the recovered alcoholic who you refrain from drinking in front of. You modify your behavior WHEN YOU’RE WITH THEM because of THEIR problem.
But it’s still THEIR problem.
Even the alcoholic crosses the line if they say…
You have to abstain at all times, even when you’re not with me, because…etc. etc. etc.
See the difference?
November 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
nc - that is a somewhat loose interpretation of Romans 14. The weaker brother has some cultural beliefs that are incongruent with Christian liberty, not just recovering alcoholics as you suggest. We who have liberty in Christ must not be careless about our liberty, and even when attacked by legalists we should remain calm and humble.
For instance, those who feel free to drink should not speak like high schoolers about it, commenting back and forth about which brand of beer they like and almost giggling about something that others might take offense. If you are mature and your personal liberty is based upon your interpretation of God’s Word then do it with humility and not in a flaunting spirit.
Just some thoughts from an old man.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Even so, it must be done in love…
By Paul’s definition, they are the weaker brothers. Additionally, though, they do tend to be guilty of “lording over” others, as you note…
The pendulum swings both ways, though, nc - when does a victory becom pyrrhic?
And this is exactly the issue when it comes to “dirty words” - because the web is used as a communition tool and mass communications put our words in front of vast audiences, it is incumbent upon the stronger brothers - those who understand that there is no such thng as an ontologically evil word - to regulate their own conduct - both out of love for their weaker brothers, and so as not to detract from their own witness to those who are not believers, but who have stereotypical views of what is or isn’t “Christian”…
Certainly the problem is with the weaker brother, but the solution to that particular problem is more in the court of the stronger brother than their own.
Certainly - where the line is crossed is in insisting that our own standards of personal holiness (our convictions which are not absolutes) must be absolutes for all. But our response to this is all we can control. In your example, Paul would suggest that if you drink when you’re not with that person that it would be best not to talk about it while you’re with them, saving your disagreement for when they broach the subject.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I hear you Chris L…
but I don’t agree that having a strong conviction necessarily means someone is weaker…
It might mean after their own theological reflection they’ve come to a conclusion they want to dominate others with.
That’s not weakness, that’s projection of your will…
November 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
“Paul would suggest that if you drink when you’re not with that person that it would be best not to talk about it while you’re with them, saving your disagreement for when they broach the subject. ”
That is a great statement and I believe best reflects the Spirit of Christ in matters of practical liberty. The conscience of our brothers and sisters must be the foundation of our considerations. Practicing things like drinking should be done in private or with like minded brethren and not bragged about in front of others. Let us recognize that our flesh wants to glory in our liberty by enjoying the way it sometimes affects others.
That is not Christ.
BTW - I have a pamphlet that lists all the things God approves of and all that He doesn’t. He knew He could trust me with it!
November 27th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
nc,
Your argument is not with me, then, but with Paul’s definition of the ‘weaker’ brother. When someone holds that a conviction (in this model) is an absolute, he is indeed the ‘weaker’ brother, regardless of the strength/dominance of their will (which is a multiplication of his spiritual weakness, not a refutation of it). Why? Because he does not understand the work of Christ and the basis of his own -praxis…
November 27th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Perhaps I was reading too much into it, as well.
Yes - that is the basis of the gospel, according to Paul to the Corinthians:
My apologies again - I was looking for things discussed recently (which were not absolutes) that were more based in orthopraxy (which tends to be more law-centric, when it comes to absolutes). This was not an intentional oversight.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I dunno Chris L…
I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree…
I think the move to dominate others is a sin-sickness that precedes Christ’s action in our lives and thus has nothing to do with weakness, but everything with “godding” over everything in our path…
November 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
No problem, thanks for the clarification!
November 27th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Phil-
I can see how a leader attracting like minds could allow people who blur these lines to seem to rise quickly.
One thing I’ve always thought is that people often enter churches out of a broken desire to have someone else tell them what to do, who to be and what to think, rather than live a life of faith themselves where they have to tackle these questions, and those that blur these categories remove all the thinking from the process, because if everything is an absolute, then you never have to think or live a life of faith again.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Kevin,
I agree - for some reason rules are easier to follow than liberty… maybe it’s fear of screwing up… maybe it’s laziness - who knows.
Neil
November 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
neil, kevin:
it’s both, I think.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Rule #1 - No rules
November 27th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Rick said, “BTW - I have a pamphlet that lists all the things God approves of and all that He doesn’t. He knew He could trust me with it!”
I think it should be an absolute that YOU post a warning when making a statement like this. So, those of us that happen to be drinking a beverage that our liberty allows us to drink, it doesn’t cause said drink to exit ones nostrils!