Larry Legalist Goes to Corinth
I like to approach things from different angles. I can’t decide if it is part of a rebellious nature, a warped brain or a lack of quality reasoning, but either way it is something I have always done. I have discovered after listening to friends, reading comments, and studying some great theologians that the issue of the weaker brother is one of the most misapplied and misunderstood passages in the Bible. Learning this, I have decided to dedicate one more post to who is NOT the weaker brother before we move on to who is the weaker brother. I have decided to forego certain personality traits in my writing for the sake of clarity. Some readers apparently can’t grasp incongruity.
Let’s make up a fictional character. We will call him Larry Legalist. You all know Larry. He is the guy who has no television, thinks going to the movies is sinful, doesn’t eat at restaurants that serve alcohol, thinks long hair is one step removed from homosexuality, and almost let his daughter get her ears pierced but changed his mind because he didn’t want boys to lust after her ears. Now Larry is perfectly in his right as a Christian to practice this lifestyle. Larry is not, however, perfectly in his right to dictate to me that if I don’t live that way then I am wrong. I have a TIVO, I go to movies, I eat at restaurants, I have no hair, and my daughter has her ears pierced and the one that will be here next week will have hers pierced as well. At no time in my TIVO watching, movie going, restaurant eating, ear piercing life did I influence Larry to do any of these things. He is convinced in his conscience.
As Joe Aldrich put it, Larry is a “professional weaker brother”. Larry takes his convictions and universalizes them to everyone. Larry will claim the weaker brother argument when it serves his need. Larry will take offense when none is given. Larry stumbles over my freedom, but I am not the cause of his misstep. Larry is no better than the Pharisees who rebuked Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Gary Friesen would call Larry “a professing believer with strong convictions who, because of his pride, takes offense at those who resist his pressure to conform to his point of view.” Larry is not a weaker brother; in fact, Larry’s sin is caused by his own refusal to learn from those stronger brothers around him.
Posts
37 Spoke Up:
AAAAMEN
Ok, who is Larry the Legalist really refering to?
Scott, you nailed it. Question for you...
Can you be friends with someone that decides to abstain from certain things that you don't. TV for example. In other words...do you find different convictions a difficult thing to get past when trying to build a relationship with another Christian couple?
I'll admit this is extremely difficult for my wife and I. Are we sinning? I don't know...but I'm trying to find out. All I know is, we don't look down upon our friends we just don't always do or agree with the things they do. And for this we feel slighted and are even warned sometimes of being too legalistic. Wow! We love them...and don't judge them...but we aren't going to do something against our conscience just because we want to "get along". And then you throw in the raising kids issue...yikes! Mike and Katie may not put their kids in the church youth group...the world may end!
Scott....I agree that one person should not impose their "beliefs" on another, but I still don't get the connection with all of this and the scriptures that continue to be referenced.
The "freedom" in scripture is simply freedom from the law. I will no post the whole chapter in here, but take a look at Galatians chapter 5. Paul is clearly telling a believer that they are being wrongly influenced towards the law as part of their new faith. A false teacher...Paul even says he wish they would mutilate themselves. He is not happy!
Also, the whole weaker / stronger brother thing....that is referring to eating meat and drinking wine that has been offered to idols. None of that context applies to some of the things giving as an example.
Larry obviously has been mis-led by some wrong thinking, but unless he is convincing you to be circumcised, he is not forcing the law on you, therefore freedom is not the argument. He is not telling you not to eat meat or drink wine that has been offered to idols, so he is neither the weaker or stronger.
In my "opinion" most of what is being talked about is common sense stuff in regards to our responsibility in our Christian life. Would anyone really argue that God is ok with us going to a R rated movie that has nudity or filthy language. Is there a scripture that deals with that specifically....no! But they're plenty that deal with it indirectly. The fact that Christians would even debate whether things like that are ok or not is somewhat disturbing.
To finish with a few scriptures...and yes I know...this is NOT pithy :-)
Gal 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
Gal 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
Gal 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
Gal 5:21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Gal 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Gal 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
Gal 5:26 Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
We may not be practicing these things...but we are told to stay away from all appearances of evil! Just a thought.
Alex, I believe that your convictions are valid and are common among Fide-O contributors. But this post has nothing to do with those convictions. I believe your over-zealous defense of holiness is keeping you from understanding what has been discussed in this series of posts. In fact, I think that became obvious to everyone when Bert piously gave us his rebuke. To make it clear, the issue is about defining the weaker brother and clarifying our responsibility to him. The so-called "Larry Legalist" is a constant bad influence with the church. Scott is simply providing wisdom to us as how to spot "Larry" and how to graciously disciple him.
But that is my point...the weaker brother, as you are defining, is anyone who doesn't understand (lacks knowledge) of his liberties. And I am asking, how do we go from the scriptures definition of a weaker brother...which is only dealing with the meat and wine offered to idols issue, and apply it to all these other areas that are being discussed. Furthure more, no one has outlined the liberties we have, other than that which we have a clear conscience of. And if that is the case, then a "brother" that I just spoke with the other day would have no problem looking at porn, because it doesn't bother his conscience, as long as it is with his wife! Go figure. But that is how far this context can be taken if mis-applied.
I am looking for clarification more than debate!
And by the way....if you would kindly look at the "About Me" section under any profile, you will see that it is NOT automatic! You have to fill that in. So, I am not sure what you are referring to about my post verses Bert's post.
I will say, if I had not met Tony that day we played golf to realize what a cut up he is and the fact that his profile MUST be intended as a joke, I too would be asking you about allowing people to post that believe in Astrology. To an insider it is obvious, but to someone on the outside???
Alex it is automatic if you put in birthdate info when creating your profile.
Alex, many people do not have a Biblical definition for the "weaker brother." That is precisely what Fide-O is currently addressing. As I read your comments, I realize that you do not have accurate definition as well. (I believe we all respect your convictions. But specific convictions are not the point of this particular series of posts).
And I am glad you are not looking for a debate, because that is not what we are about. So stay tuned, more post are coming as this Biblical definition is worked out from an exegesis of the texts.
And I am suprised by your sensitivity and lack of a sense of humor. I don't know Bert well enough, only meeting him briefly in N.C., but he was considered an "insider." But just so you guys will know we aren't really dogs either.
Ha, Ha, just a joke...
Also Alex, is it NOT possible to infer some spiritual pricnciples from these 2 texts?
If not, at least we're covered when it comes to eating meat and drinking wine offered idols, which is good, because that situation comes up all the time in my experience ;-).
man all this talk of idol offered wine is making me thirsty.
I enjoy your spirited debate. maybe one day I will join in.
Jason, thanks for your patience. I am truly not trying to be hard-headed in this, just a little slow. And I do have a sense of humor and understood what Tony was doing with the profile, just saying others may not.
Anyway, weaker brother....if it is not specific's we are after and we are looking for a spiritual principle (with the risk of sounding very simple minded) aren't we talking about a younger Christian? One who lacks a certain knowledge (that which the stronger has) about the freedom from the law? Or the new found liberties.
How does one move from being the weaker brother to the stronger? Is it a specific piece of knowledge? Is it being convinced in his conscience about this certain thing? If so, what is used to convince him? How can someone, as a Christian, who is ok with drinking, convince me that I have that liberty in moderation (just an example)? I am 37 and have been a Christian since 19, have read the bible countless times, commentaries, books and set under teaching and taught for many years, yet I am still convinced for me it is wrong. Actually, the older I get and watch this world around me, the more convinced I am. If I am the weaker.....how can someone reveal a truth to me that I have missed that will make me stronger to this example?
If I still mis-understand what is being discussed here, please forgive me.
Exactly Bo! Some idol wine and nice Davidoff later would be mighty fine.
Well...maybe just the Davidoff. >-/
Ahh, now we are on to something! I know that there are more post being drafted as we speak that will address these questions and more!
Does it make me the weaker brother if that picture on this post makes me almost vomit?
Okay, okay! I changed my profile info.
Geesh!
Bert who are you calling a dust-covered, mal-nourished dwarf?
(great image btw)
Sojourner, I actually think that would make you the stronger brother. Just a little squemish.
Alex, I am 32 and believe that alcohol is a sin for me because of how I feel about it. Now with that said, I do not have an issue with a brother or sister tht enjoys a glass of wine or **non strong drink**. I don't think your the weaker brother if this does not cause you to do it, and if you do not impose your personal views on others where it is not needed. I Like how Jason quotes, "we need to be ready in season and out of season" which means if anyone is in the ministry dealing with people they must consider drinking a sin issue because of the great responsibilty they have to always be ready to "Go". What do you think?
Daryl, "All things are lawful, but not all are profitable". I don't think I would put drinking into the 'sin' category. Unwise perhaps, unprofitable maybe, but to toss it in with drunkeness or any other excessive vice, might lead to another form of excess - legalism.
Also, if people in ministry "must consider drinking a sin issue", then that puts every believer in the same boat, because we're all in the ministry of dealing with people in one fashion or another.
Although, I will have to say that it's rather counterproductive to witness with a umbrella in your drink.
Daryl...I basically feel the same way. I suppose I struggle with your point about the ministry. The scripture is for any Christian. We should all have that vantage point and ready to give a defense of the gospel, not of why it is ok to drink.
For me, I struggle with the fact that many use the scripture to justify beer and mixed drink as if they are equal to wine. I struggle with the fact that no one (or very few) that uses that argument, actually only has one, or for bacteria killing purposes. Mostly brain cell killing purposes. And when they do have one, they feel they have to do it in private. Hmmm?
Then, I struggle with how the non-believers feel about it. Most would see someone (a Christian) who drinks alcohol and feel they were being hypocritical. My reputation as an ambassador to Christ is more important to me in the publics eye than my liberty to drink.
Is alcohol a sin? Is nudity a sin? Is language a sin? Etc. No...but how they are used and the motivation behind their uses are. If it were only for medical (wine), marriage (sex between wife / husband), communication (not filth)
, but often this is not the case even for Christians.
But to bring this back to the weaker verses stronger....am I the weaker because I abstain and am saddened by those that claim liberty? Or am I the stronger because I have liberties from those desires and they the weaker because they can't withstand the temptation. And I do NOT mean that as an accusation!
Good points Tony.
I will toss out one more thought on the influence on a brewsky! Eph. 5:18 says not to be drunken, but filled with the Spirit. I had a sister in law who claimed to be a Christian, but said she like to have a drink every night after work to help her calm down. I say claimed not because of the drinking, but because of her particular faith....and we will leave that alone :-)
I questioned that reasoning (and have heard that from others) because isn't that what the Holy Spirit is for? When we begin to rely on the "spirit" of a drink to help instead of the "Spirit" of God, isn't this sinful. And I guess I would ask, isn't that what happens with any drug? When we open ourselves up to that type of influence, what good can really become of it?
Any thoughts?
Alex - The Holy Spirit used to calm us down? Where's that? Everytime I read the effects of the Holy Spirit on a person it certainly didn't calm them down, quite the opposite in fact. When the Holy Spirit showed up, things happened!
Now we do enjoy the peace of the Holy Spirit, but that speaks to cessation of striving against God in rebellion, a cease-fire so to speak, not a feeling of calmness.
The occasional hard day is simply that, occasional. We all have those. A drink "everynight after work" however, is not a sign of a drinking problem, it's a coping problem. If you're having "hard days" everyday, drinking is probably the least of your problems. These are people who are disappionted with their situation which is what my last post was about. Their sin is not drinking... its pride.
Alex, both your posts are well put. I have to agree with you on the point about ministers, deacons, etc... Because we are all ministers of Christ and the Gospel and should all be ready at all times to speak and defend the truth. So you’re right and I believe you are the stronger because you can abstain.
To your point with Tony. That is why I have such an issue with any form of alcohol as well. You must ask WHAT IS THE POINT? What do you gain? Or even more important what does your testimony lose? And I don't buy into the health argument. There are plenty of other ways to maintain health.
And of course anything in this world can become sin if done or used outside of God's sovereign will.
I guess what I am trying to say is I agree with you. Thanks
Tony, Your right, you can't just toss drinking in the sin boat. However for me, because of my view of drinking, for me it would be a sin against my own conscience. I know I should not drink, I know it will benefit me nothing; I know I would be heavy with conviction if I did drink, therefore for me it would be a sin.
I would be very hesitant to incline my opinion towards calling this legalism. Granted I am one who must be careful about that, but this drinking issue is more profound than a simple label.
How one deals with the pressures of life reveals a lot about one's character. Granted, stress is not a sin (see Jesus sweating drops of blood) and neither is relaxation. But one must remember the "trust factor" if you want to be an effective spiritual leader (as a pastor, parent, teacher, deacon...). The reality is that when most Baptists see someone being a proponent of drinking alcohol, they wonder, "Does that guy get drunk? What if I called on him one night to minister to one of my loved ones and he was wasted? How could I trust him to help us when we even believe that drinking alcohol is the practice of fools, immature frat boys, and a serious factor in most people involved in domestic crimes." Whether that is right or wrong, it is reality. When one loses the "trust factor" one loses the ability to be an effective leader, at least among most Baptist.
Now do many Baptist plan on stop drinking -- NO, or stop going to gamble at the casino or be gluttons or hate their neighbor . . .
But God called some of us to shepherd this bunch. And it is a worthy calling.
Keep on topic boys.
Sorry, could someone point me towards my car
Scott, your right. We should take this conversation off the blog and talk about later.....and hey the beer is on me.
Yeah, thanks for keeping us on track scott.
We're supposed to be learning about Larry Legalist not imitating him by pointing out the "depravity" of the "wicked" imbiber.
Guys don't ignore the fact that drinking is one of the principle examples of the weaker brother argument.....so is it really off topic?
Tony....Holy Spirit calming us....a spiritual principal.
Psalm 23
Act 9:31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.
Rom 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 15:13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
And last but not least!
Mat 11:28 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.
If this does not speak to the calming and peace one should have through the power of the Spirit....then I do not know what does!
Nice Defense Alex. Both you and Tony are right. The passages you referenced show the spirits calming effects. Look over these.
These are all examples of the spirit causing action
Mark 1:12 The spirit drove Christ into the wilderness to be tempted.
Acts 2 You have Pentecost
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the holy spirit.
Acts 19 is another example of the recieving the Holy Spirit and resulting tongues and prophesy.
So we see both in scricture the spirit will comfort and give peace as well as stir up and cause action through the soveregn control of our awesome God.
Oh yea and uhhh......help the weaker brother.....whew..almost got off subject again.
Daryl are from Switzerland?
Ok so here is my question for clarification to myself. I agree with everything you have said in your weaker brother posts, but I get this question all the time and I just can't seem to articulate it the best.
If a Christian pastor has a beer at Applebees and someone sees him and thinks, well, if he can do it, I can do and then goes out and gets drunk, where does that fall on the weaker brother scale? Is the pastor at fault in any way?
I only use "pastor" for emphasis.
Thanks a bunch.
Brett
Brett, I would say that the hypothetical is understandable but not really a "weaker brother" scenario.
The pastor did not get drunk so he did not actually become a stumbling block.
If someone felt liberty to drink responsibly because of the pastor then I think the pastor would thank God that he influenced someone to use wisdom.
Bottom line: Since the pastor did not get drunk, the "weaker brother" argument does not apply.
If someone were to try to make it apply, then it would also apply if the other man became a glutton because he saw the pastor eat a meal. Or it would apply if the man lusted after the waitress just because he saw the pastor give her a tip.
As you can see the argument just doesn't work.
So, thanks for the question. I agree that it is a common one.
Grace and peace.
Post a Comment