I’m working on a series on when and how Christians might disagree amicably, and on what kinds of issues we should expect to disagree. My first post dealt with theological triage, and thinking about the severity of different theological disagreements. In my second post, I extended some of those ideas to issues of Christian practice, and gave the example of how Christians might deal with Halloween. I advocated applying a kind of practical triage to issues of how we live out our faith. In today’s post, I want to recap some key Biblical principles concerning what’s called “Christian liberty” – the idea that Christians have considerable liberty in how we live out our faith, and the Bible highlights certain areas where Christians will make different decisions in this regard.

To be clear, I am not here speaking about areas where the Bible clearly prescribes one particular behavior or set of actions, or proscribes a different set. For example, when it comes to the issue of murder, there is no Christian liberty at play; all Christians must agree murder is wrong, because the whole Bible teaches this extremely clearly. There are many issues in this category. However, the Bible also clearly indicates some issues where Christians will and should differ in how they live out their faith, and that’s where Christian liberty comes up.

Key Biblical texts on Christian liberty

Let’s begin by looking at a couple of key Bible passages on Christian liberty and see how they address this issue.

1 Corinthians 8 and food sacrificed to idols

1 Corinthians 8 is one of at least two key passages in the Bible where Christian liberty comes up in the context of eating food sacrificed to idols (see also Romans 14, below). In many places in Greek and Roman times, meat was offered as a sacrifice to idols or false gods. Sometimes this sacrifice and idol worship was also connected with sexual immorality, such as with temple prostitutes. In any case, after the meat was offered as a sacrifice to an idol, it might be sold in the market at a discount, giving consumers the opportunity to buy this meat and eat it.

The Corinthian church had written to Paul with questions about this issue, apparently, because it was a frequent cause of concern among Christians at the time. If they ate, they wondered, would they be participating in idol worship? Or was this just simply ordinary meat, perfectly fine to buy in order to save money? Paul addressed this at some length in 1 Cor. 8. Part of what he says is this (v4-8):

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.

Part of Paul’s reasoning here is that God is the most high God, over all, the one true and living God who created all things. If we know that, and clearly understand it, we can receive food – even if sacrificed to idols – with thanksgiving and without worshipping idols. However, “not all men have this knowledge”; for some, eating food sacrificed to idols would indeed be wrong because they would be eating “as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.” That is, it’s not the eating itself that is wrong, but how they see the eating which makes it wrong. It’s the way in which they eat, and how doing so goes against their conscience, which is problematic.

Paul goes on to explain in 1 Corinthians 8 that the operating principle among Christians needs to be love. Yes, some Christians correctly recognize that they have the freedom to eat food sacrificed to idols, but this freedom must not be abused to hurt other (weaker) Christians who do not understand. As v9 says:

But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

A weaker Christian might see a strong Christian eating food sacrificed to idols, and be enticed to do the same – going against their own conscience – and thereby end up sinning, because it is sin to go against our conscience (as we’ll see in our next passage). Given that, part of Paul’s final conclusion is that he chooses to give up his own freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols, out of love (v13):

Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

Though he has the freedom to eat food sacrificed to idols, then, he will abstain from it – even for the rest of his life, if necessary – if it will cause other Christians to stumble or run into problems.

Romans 14

Romans 14 also deals with Christian liberty, in a slightly broader context, but one of the issues addressed there is again food sacrificed to idols. In v1-4 we read:

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Here, the issue is eating – one believes “he may eat all things”; another eats only vegetables. Why would he refrain from eating meet? Any meat might have been offered to idols before it was sold in the market, raising the same issues addressed above in 1 Cor. 8 – by eating meat, would someone be accidentally participating in idol worship? Here, Paul explains that neither party is to judge the other, nor have contempt for the other. We are all accountable to God.

In the next several verses, Paul extends this principle of individual accountability to God slightly further, beyond the issue of what to eat (v5-6):

One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

Here, he addresses the fact that some in the Roman church set apart particular festivals and Jewish holidays as holy and “above one another”, whereas others recognize they don’t need to do so and “regard every day alike”. To those concerned about observing particular religious days, or those concerned about whether or not to eat meat, he gives two key principles: 1) “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” 2) “He … does so for the Lord”

We will revisit these again below. For now, though, the key point is that each person is to make their own decision and do so for God.

v10 also revisits the idea of judgment and contempt, as we read earlier in the chapter:

But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

It is critical, then, not to judge others for their differing practices in these areas, as we saw about v5-6. Likewise, several other verses in Romans 14 deal with the importance of not judging one another in these matters where Christians will differ; we are all individually accountable to God, though our beliefs and practices may differ.

Romans 14 closes with this verse (23), which provides another important guideline:

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

“Whatever is not from faith is sin”; that’s a far reaching idea. Thus it’s not just a matter of what we do – but our attitude in doing it. Two people might eat the same meal, the same meat, and one might do so out of worship to God and in thankfulness, and another might be sinning – not because of what they are eating, but what is going on in their heart as they eat.

1 Corinthians 7-10

Above, we already looked at 1 Corinthians 8, but this falls in the middle of a larger block of the book of 1 Corinthians dealing with several different specific issues the Corinthian church had asked about, and with respect to each of these topics, Paul lays out the key principles of worship for God and love for other believers in a context where Christians differ in their practices while sharing the same love for God.

Many will be familiar with 1 Corinthians 7 as a relatively difficult chapter concerning marriage. In it, Paul gives marital guidance – some apparently general, but some fairly specific for the Corinthians’ situation, in which they were facing severe persecution. For example, in 7:25-27 he advises that those who are unmarried should not seek to be married (likely in part because of their specific circumstances). In 7:32-35 he goes on to give his reasoning – in part, that he wants to ensure they are wholeheartedly devoted to God:

But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

It would seem the logical conclusion of this would be “Well, then, of course you shouldn’t marry, because all Christians must have undistracted devotion to the Lord.” Yet this is not what Paul concludes. Rather, he reiterates repeatedly that it is not wrong for them to marry – e.g. v28, v36, v38. I’ll quote just v28:

But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned…

This may seem surprising. Isn’t it clearly best to have undistracted devotion to God? Yet’s that not his conclusion. He very clearly says that it’s not wrong for them to marry. The overarching principle here seems to be that they are to decide for themselves how best they can serve and worship God in their situation. Different believers will make different choices given their own specific personalities, challenges, and circumstances, it seems.

This leads into chapter 8, which we looked at above, and which echoes this same principle – in both marriage, and in what you eat or drink, decide for yourself how best to worship God. Act in a manner consistent with your conscience, and in love towards others. As much as you might want to know whether it’s “best” or “sin” to marry or not to marry, or to eat or to abstain from eating, there’s no firm answer that holds for all believers; it depends on what’s motivating you and how you can best worship God.

1 Corinthians 9, then, turns to Paul’s use of his own liberty. He spends some time enumerating the rights he has, and then explaining how he’s used none of these rights, and instead worked to “become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some” (v23). While he has the liberty to do a great many things, he says, he gladly gives up his liberty so that he can love others and bring them to Christ.

At least part of 1 Corinthians 10 continues on this topic, and 1 Cor. 10:23-33 marks somewhat of a climax or summary of the whole section, explaining:

All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?

Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

So, again, a key operating principle is love; in all we do we ought not to seek only our own good, but also the good of others. This is true for issues of eating and drinking (and other areas of Christian liberty) where we must be sure not to entice others to violate their own conscience. Thus, we must “do all to the glory of God” – even eating or refraining from eating “for the glory of God”, seeking in all things to benefit others. Here, as in 9:23, Paul’s goal is that people would be saved.

So, then, this section concludes that we are to use our liberty in a way that benefits others, and which will bring others to Christ – even if it means giving up our rights to do so.

Circumcision in the New Testament

Another powerful illustration of the importance of the heart or motivation behind why we do what we do, comes from the issue of circumcision in the New Testament. Circumcision comes up in 1 Corinthians 7, a chapter we looked at above, where we are told (v18-19):

Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

yet Paul tells the Galatians (5:2-3):

Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Or in Acts 16:2-3, Paul has Timothy circumcised to help reach the Jews, yet in Galatians 2:3 Paul makes the point of noting that he had been careful not to compel Titus to be circumcised when he was with them.

Which is it? Is circumcision “nothing”, or is it a terrible error, which makes “Christ of no benefit to you”? Why should Timothy be circumcised, but not Titus?

To resolve this, we need to look at the specific issue facing the Galatians when Paul wrote to them. They were in great danger of deserting Christ and turning away to a “different gospel” (1:6) in which they would attempt to come to God by “works of the Law” (e.g. 3:1-3), which would include circumcision, rather than by “hearing with faith”. So if the Galatians received circumcision as part of attempting to earn salvation, Paul said, “Christ will be of no benefit…” and he was careful to point out that he had not compelled anyone to be circumcised (2:3) because the gospel is for both Jews and Gentiles, the circumcised and the uncircumcised (2:7-8). Circumcision wasn’t needed for salvation, so the Galatians must not turn to it as if it were. Doing so would show they were turning away from Christ.

But in 1 Corinthians, the Corinthian church faced no such risk of deserting Christ and turning to works, so Paul could write, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing…” And in Acts, as part of reaching out to the Jews in that region, Paul recognized that if Timothy was not circumcised, the Jews wouldn’t want to associate with him and he would have trouble reaching them with the gospel. So he had Timothy circumcised so he could better reach the Jews (see also 1 Cor. 9:22 for this principle). So for one group of professing Christians, circumcision is a terrible danger; in another, circumcision is nothing, and for a third, circumcision is a tool for outreach.

So what’s our main take-away regarding circumcision, then? For New Testament Christians, circumcision “is nothing”. What mattered was not the act of circumcision – but why they were being circumcised, their heart in doing so. The why made the difference between it being a horrible error or an act fulfilling the great commission.

Fully convinced in his own mind

One particular phrase from Romans 14:5 helps me a great deal as I consider Christian liberty. There, Paul writes “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind,” when he addresses the differences among believers regarding holy days. That phrase really sticks with me, as it speaks to the deep conviction of people on both sides of an issue.

What issues are Christians most likely to fight about? It’s not those issues where we are uncertain or not really convinced. It’s those where we are “fully convinced” in our own minds. We’re convinced that the way we are handling the issue is right, and maybe even the only Biblical way, we’re prepared to defend our views. Whatever the issue, we believe we are living out our faith and handling the issue “for the Lord” (v6). So, we’re fully convinced – not only that our practices are right but that our heart and motivation are right.

From there, it’s only a very small step to judging or having contempt for believers who disagree with us (Romans 14:10). After all, if our position is so right, doesn’t that mean those who disagree with us are wrong? We can easily begin to believe that our own convictions are the only Biblical way of looking at the issue, so every Christian ought to see the issue in the same way and make the same choices we do. So we begin to judge those who make different choices, and have contempt for them. But Romans 14:10 tells us that we ought not to judge other believers in this way, because “we will all stand before the judgment seat of God”; that is, each of us is accountable to God for how we’ve lived, and whether we’ve lived out our own convictions.

This phrase, then, is critical; it tells us that we should expect to differ from other believers in matters where we are fully convinced we’re right, and they will have an equal conviction of their own views! The goal isn’t that we come to some kind of mutual agreement, but that we refrain from judging or having contempt for those who disagree with us.

He who eats, eats for the Lord

Another key principle is the idea that whatever we do, we must do for the Lord (Romans 14:6-8a):

He who regards the day, regards it for the Lord, and he who eats, eats for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who does not eat, for the Lord he does not eat and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord…

This passage makes very clear that different Christians will make different choices – in this case, about what kind of food to eat, or whether to celebrate a particular holiday – and in doing so, they will and must do so “for the Lord”. If this is so, we must recognize there will be diversity of practices. Christians have one and the same faith, but they will live it out differently. I may well be living “for the Lord”, in worship, by making one particular choice about how I live out my faith – but that doesn’t mean someone who makes a very different choice, or even an opposite choice, is sinning or living against the Lord. No, in many areas, we might make very different choices “for the Lord”, as this text makes very clear.

Whatever does not come from faith is sin

On the positive side, we saw how Christians will make differing decisions while doing so “for the Lord”, but there is also a negative side. Christians must make their own decisions and live out their own convictions, rather than being led by those of someone else; to adhere to someone else’s convictions can be sin, if they are not your own convictions as well. Romans 14:23 is very clear on this issue (regarding the choice of food in particular):

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

That principle is far-reaching: “whatever does not come from faith is sin.” If one believer goes against their own convictions, against their own faith, against their own conscience, they are sinning. See also 1 Cor. 8:13 discussed above, which noted how one believer’s choice to eat food sacrificed to idols might cause another believer to stumble.

Given this, then, it’s important that we not encourage other believers to go against their own convictions – even if we’re trying to get them to conform to ours. Nor should we go along with the convictions of other believers if we have contrary convictions. This also means that if and when we differ from other believers on matters of importance, we need to deal with convictions, not just practices.

The weak Christian/the proud Christian

I want to conclude by revisiting my last post, in which I mentioned that I used to have a strong conviction that Christians should not celebrate Halloween. Looking back, I realize I had a sense of pride in being “in the right” on this issue (though I wouldn’t have admitted it at the time), and I looked down on those who I thought were “less enlightened” in their practices about Halloween. I was going exactly the route of Romans 14:10 and regarding those who disagreed with me with contempt.

With regards to Halloween, I remember thinking that those who disagreed with me partly lacked an adequate understanding of the Christian faith and how to live it out. I thought I was a strong Christian, and they were weaker Christians – because (I told myself) I was willing to think through the implications of my faith, whereas they would (I told myself) just blindly go along with tradition and celebrate it. So in my view, I was the strong Christian and they were weak in their faith.

Only much later did I realize that I had our identities exactly wrong. I, as I abstained from participating in Halloween, was the one who was “weak in faith”. The scenario almost exactly parallels that in Romans 14:1-3:

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats must not view the one who does not eat with contempt, and the one who does not eat must not judge the one who eats, for God accepted him…

This passage almost perfectly fits my attitude on Halloween, if we substitute the idea of celebrating Halloween (or abstaining) for that of eating meat or abstaining. This passage explicitly prohibits both groups from judging one another – but it calls out those who abstain as being “weak in faith” (see also 1 Cor. 8:7). They could not in good conscience eat food that might have been sacrificed to idols, so they (rightly) chose to abstain. But this was not something to be proud of (if ever Christians should be proud of anything!) – as I had with my Halloween choices – but something associated with weak faith.

I’m very thankful that eventually, God showed me the truth of this passage and how it exactly applied to my situation, and brought me to repent of my pride and contempt. In seeking to draw clear lines regarding conduct in areas where the Bible does not, I had painted myself as “more spiritual” because of my conduct, and others as “less spiritual” because of theirs. Instead, however, I was weak in faith, and my weak faith meant I should abstain – but not judge others who did participate. Further, I needed to recognize that conduct should flow from my heart, out of worship – and that different believers might make very different decisions in how best to worship God with their lives.

Over time, I’ve come to believe that, instead of seeking to bring other believers to live out their faith in the same ways I do, I should seek to bring them to live out their faith for the same reasons I do even if their practices might look different. That is, the goal isn’t outward conformity, but unity in spirit and purpose (Phil. 2:1-4) even if that means diversity of practice.