For which am I more responsible:
Doing what I believe is right by exercising my own freedom in Christ, or
Being sensitive to other's weaknesses?
I think the answer will be different depending on the context. What's your guideline? When does one outweigh the other?
I notice that on my friend Jim's blog he often raises questions that he already has developed some sort of answer to. Must come from being a philosopher. I, on the other hand, do not have an answer, just vague ponderings.
8 comments:
I think that you are right in saying that it depends on the context. I don't mean to give a "pat" answer, but I think prayer is the key. I think we have to trust God to lead us in these gray areas. One way or the other someone will probably get hurt or be put out - us or the other person - it's nice to know you are doing what God has told you to do in situations like that - it takes away the guilt or anger.
Please pardon the preachiness of this comment. I don't like doing that, but in this instance, I can't give you my authentic response without doing it.
I think you must do both, and the fact that they seem mutually exclusive is deception, which requires the Spirit of Truth to help untangle. I do see the quandary you are expressing, but I also think scripture speaks to the issue pretty plainly. Rom. 14 and Galatians 5. Whatever has got you asking this question would probably be a good subject for "praying the scripture" as described by Madame Jeanne Guyon in Experiencing the Depths of Jesus Christ, excerpts of which appear in Devotional Classics: Selected Readings for Individuals & Groups edited by Richard Foster. I love this devotional collection from Foster, and if you don't have it, you should get it. I think that I know your taste in writers well enough to make this guarantee: if you buy it from Amazon, or some other reputable online retailer, and after reading 3 selections you don't want it anymore, I'll buy it from you for whatever you paid for it, including shipping.
This is a very sticky situation, Kelly! I very much agree with Tina.
I can't understand from Jim's comment how you do both at the same time, unless you are stretching semantics pretty thin. As servants of Christ, our aim is to submit to Him in everything, so submitting to a weaker brother's conviction can be done happily, not a begrudgingly. Exercising freedom also falls under the same category of submitting to Christ, in my book.
This very issue caused great conflict in the NT times. Paul rebuked Peter publicly about stopping his meals with Gentile believers once some high-powered Jewish believers rolled into town.
For Craig and me, we usually agree about most things, but when we don't, we have decided ahead of time to go with "the weaker conscience."
Kelly: In re-reading my "preachy" comment above, I see that I said a couple of things that could be easily misunderstood. By saying that *you* should get the devotional book I recommended, I wasn't trying to imply that there's some sort of deficiency in you that the book would solve. What I was trying to say is that I think you should get it because I think you would love it. Also, by saying that "the fact that they seem mutually exclusive is deception," I wasn't trying to imply that you, individually, have been deceived. The deception I was referring to is common to all of us. And, probably, "deceived" isn't even the right word. "Misperception" is probably closer. What I was trying to say is that many things that appear to be mutually exclusive to us mere mortals are actually not mutually exclusive----that there is a "right answer"---but that we cannot figure out what that is with our logic, reason, or intellect. And I don't think the answer can be perceived emotionally either.
Jamey: I agree with you about my earlier statement. Hopefully, I've clarified things a bit, although I may have just made it murkier. My theology in these matters (law vs. grace, sovereignty vs. free-will, etc.) is a bit on the mystical side, so I'm not surprised if my explanations are not very clear.
Since I don't believe common sense or human reason are sufficient to answer any of life's really interesting questions I would suggest prayer + patience + sensitivity + lessons learned from life should be used together (I hope no one expects a difficult question to have a simple answer, though sometimes it does happen). Also, perspective may help/complicate the situation: do I try to make the "right" decision for myself, or try to do what has the most positive impact on the church/community? I'm leaning in the direction of a community-oriented mentality, but hopefully I'll graduate to a Christ-centered mentality some day. I realize I should be careful about that, since Christ often did things some might say makes him look like a jerk.
So, as you said depending on the context, being sensitive to other's weaknesses can have a very positive effect on the church and personal relationships. But there are also times when allowing someone else's weaknesses to bully everyone has a cumulative negative impact, which often is not recognized until it's too late - after months or years of "being sensitive."
When compassion is tempered with common sense and/or life's painful lessons I think we've got a much better chance at making good decisions. The odds are even better if we can listen to the HS.
I've begun to wish I hadn't asked the question. Jim's response has brought up negative memories, some having to do with failures of love within the body of Christ. I have an old injury or two to grapple with. Thanks a lot, Jim. Actually, I say that sarcastically, but really I should be grateful for any means God uses to work on things that need to be worked on--things I don't remember or have chosen to ignore.
I'm glad to have you for a friend, Jim. I do intend to order that book, although it looks like I'll have to get the revised edition. I hope it's as good as the one you've enjoyed so much.
In fact, the question I asked only arose because of an innocent, half-serious question raised on someone else's blog, a throw-away.
Alexander McCall Smith's *Sunday Philosophy Club* has made me realize how often I think in terms of ethics and morality. His main character considers our obligations to one another as a matter of course, and I find I have much in common with her. This moral/ethical obligation is both complicated and simplified if you happen to be a Christian as well as a rational being.
Michael and I had an interesting theoretical conversation last week concerning whether make-up was ethical, since it employs a mode of deception no matter how minor. If make-up is unethical, is cutting your hair, curling it, using hair care products, deodorant? These are all modes of concealing the truth about ourselves. At the same time, do we not have some sort of moral obligation to make ourselves hygenic for the good of those who have to interact with us? What then is the appropriate use of these accoutrements? All of this should have been material for another post.
What's funny, Jim, is that I was slightly offended by your initial comment, but not in any of the ways you thought I might be. WE are deceived all the time and in myriad ways. It is only in recognizing that fact that we also recognize our dependance on the Holy Spirit.
I was offended because you assumed that I had some particular concern in mind, which was a reasonable assumption absent a literal window to my brain. I don't think suich offense was warranted. Human emotional responses are oh so difficult to regulate, you know.
By the way, book recommendations are Always Welcome.
Michael, for an example of Jesus as jerk, please see the entire book of John, I believe it was the New Century Version that gave me this impression between its lines.
What does jerk actually infer, and is it an appropriate adjective to use in describing God Himself? I'm being nitpicky. This is a separate thought. It sounds like I'm questioning you, when in reality I want only to question this word we've become so comfortable using. There are lots and lots of similar words I fear we use far too insouciently.
Post a Comment