I posted this under the "Drinking" question. Then I noticed the one on "Abstinence," and it seemed more appropriate there. That question went away into the netherworld of old threads the day after I posted, however, so I did not get any substantial replies. (I did learn that Danny will pass on a bottle of Pinot Noir unless he is trying to suppress a cough!) I would really like some feedback though. I've reworked my post and am placing it under this new question, since my main interest is the subject of fostering legalism vs. drinking specifically . . .

An influential verse for me on many of the "disputable" subjects (e.g., drinking; dancing; beards) used to be 1 Corinthians 10:23 - "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable." From basic study, I knew drinking was not prohibited by Scripture. (Original languages aside, 'Not given to much grape juice' and the possibility of drinking grape juice causing a brother to stumble, just didn't make sense.) Even more true regarding such things as dancing, playing cards and having a beard.

But I knew people held strong opinions against some or all of these, (though they did not see them as opinions). The last discussion highlighted the drinking issue. Think beyond that one for a minute. My fellow FCC alumni, do you remember playing Skip-Bo and Uno in the Holy Land? Was it because no one knew Rummy and Euchre? No, regular playing cards were prohibited. Why? We did not want to offend anyone. Granted, but why would anyone have been offended? Because, 'Christians do not play cards.' Ever heard anything similar regarding pool? I have. I also know of an FCC wedding that was the subject of discussion because there was dancing at the reception. I was not there, but I am certain no one was doing the Lambada. It was just that any form of dancing was looked down upon. And then there is the dreaded . . . facial hair! I had a friend tell me once that if he grew a beard, his congregation would run him out of town. Maybe some exaggeration, but I do have another friend whose father was not asked to give the communion meditation for a whole winter, during which he had a beard. When it came off in the Spring, he was back in the rotation. (If "Thou shalt not drink" is an inference, what would you call that "biblical principle"?)

Once again, there are some strong opinions on these subjects by Christians - who do not necessarily view them as opinions. That being the case, I knew they all had the possibility of offending people and interfering with my ministry. My thought was, 'I know the position is not biblical (i.e., to view such things as wrong), but I'll just focus on the "important" things.' I saw precedent in the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16). Paul knew it was not required by God, but Timothy's being uncircumcised would have hindered the effectiveness of their ministry.

Recently, another passage(s) and a different incident have affected my view. Galatians takes a strong stand against people undermining the freedom that we have in Christ (e.g., "do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery," 5:1; "if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed," 1:9). And not just because it is not fair to have to sacrifice such freedom, but because the mentality that calls for us to do so fosters legalism and erodes Grace. In Galatians, Paul refers to an incident outwardly similar to the one with Timothy. A traveling companion (Titus) was not circumcised. This time, Paul refused to circumcise him. Why? Because doing so would have lent credence to the position that being circumcised was necessary for salvation . . . a part of being a Christian . . . legalism.

My point: Which incident best represents the situation in most churches today - Timothy or Titus? Is there more of a danger of causing offense and hindering our ministry, or of fostering legalism by the stands we take? (Or the lack of a stand - I doubt many of us preach against playing cards and dancing, but do we confront the attitude that says, "Christians do not do such things"?)

Personally, I used to classify such things as "minor issues" which were best overlooked in order to focus on the important things. That is, I would not take the time to show such opinions were not scriptural, because there were "more spiritual" things to focus on. But now I wonder, Is it possible for people to be legalistic in some areas (i.e., the so-called "minor" ones) and not in others? Experience tells me, No. Such thinking undermines a strong view of Grace in general. What about your experience? Do such attempts not to offend actually do more harm than good? I'm sure Paul's refusal to circumcise Titus ruffled a few feathers. However, he decided it was best for maintaining the purity of the Gospel and the life of the Church.

Again my point: Which situation best reflects most churches - Timothy or Titus? What is the ultimate effect of the position we have been espousing (or not) regarding these issues? Have we lovingly avoided offending people and wisely removed obstacles to our ministry? Or have we unwittingly fostered legalism, and preached (or at least condoned) "another gospel"?

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Answers

Steve, I think some of us responded to the recent thread (now in the archives) regardomg Worldliness: what is it; who defines it to a part of your question. From the experience I had with this, as expressed in my response on that thread, legalism is deadly, stultifying, and does much, much more harm than good.

As to your generalizing with the phrase "most churches," I would suggest that there is no such thing. There are a variety of expressions within the evangelical Christian community, so that this is too broad a brush, although I understand what you are seeking to ascertain.

Blessings!

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

Steve,

I responded to your earlier posting on the drinking or abstinence thread, but something happened and my answer got "lost in cyberspace" and never showed up in the thread itself.

I can't reproduce what I said exactly, and in any case I've been re-thinking what I said, so here is another try, based both on that re-thinking and on what you said in your latest posting.

Personally, as I've expressed in the other thread, I don't believe that the Bible teaches absolute abstinence from all alcohol. Therefore, I believe that in Christ we have the freedom to drink or not to drink, according to our own conscience and according to what we deem best in the society in which we live, based on both cultural norms and what serves as the best witness and does not cause others to sin (either by over-indulging themselves or by encouraging their legalism). (There! That last clause gets both sides.) Since I have spent most of my life outside of the U.S., I don't feel I'm sufficiently in tune with U.S. culture and Christian "norms" in the U.S. to know whether the situation there best fits the Titus model or the Timothy model.

By the way, how would you propose to apply the Titus model to the issue of drinking? (a) Merely oppose those who teach that absolute abstinence is required by the Bible? (b) Actively teach that moderate drinking is acceptable? (c) Set an example, yourself, of drinking in situations where you know it will be frowned on?

While I don't feel in a position to comment on the drinking issue in the U.S. situation, you also mention another issue that I did have some personal experience with, in the U.S. situation. This case is nearly 30 years old, and I think views on this issue have changed somewhat over the years, but what happened might have some bearing on the overall question.

I attended Ozark Bible College in the late '60s and early '70s. I went there straight from Hong Kong, having grown up mainly in South Africa and Hong Kong. When I got there I found that some things that I considered merely a matter of personal preference and/or fashion were strictly prohibited: facial hair, hair that came over the ears or the collar, and bare feet (or even sandals). Ironically, the student handbook did not include specific rules against these things, but simply had some general statement to the effect that students were expected to make sure that their appearance was appropriate for Christians. Since I felt that facial hair, slightly longer hair (mine was never VERY long), and bare feet were perfectly appropriate for Christians, I made a habit of "testing the limits".

As a side issue, you need to keep in mind the time period. This was the heyday of the hippie movement and the anti-vietnam-war protests. In that area at that time, beards (even moustaches), long hair, and bare feet (or sandals) were all seen as signs of being a hippie or a war protester, both of which were seen (in most conservative Christian circles in that area) as being very anti-Christian movements. For those of us who came from overseas -- or from California! -- where these things were not seen that way, this was hard to swallow.

Things finally came to a head when I went to the cafeteria barefoot on the very day that a sign was put up (which I hadn't seen) saying that students were required to wear shoes in the cafeteria. They served me my food, but shortly thereafter the Registrar and Dean of Students came and took me into a side room where we spent about two hours or more arguing these issues.

More than an hour into the discussion they finally told me that they really had no choice in the matter, because the local health code for the city of Joplin (MO) required that people had to wear shoes to be served in any eating establishment under their jurisdiction. At that point something clicked with me. In Hong Kong I had attended a high school which required students to wear uniforms. I felt it was ridiculous for a college to require "uniforms" of any kind, but if they had, and that was a condition for attending there, and I wanted to attend there, I would have submitted to that. What I could not take was the judgement on my faith -- that I was not behaving in a Christian way (perhaps was not even a Christian) unless I conformed to their standard of what a Christian should look like. I told them this insight, and they eventually agreed to change the handbook. And they kept their word, though they couldn't resist getting in a final "dig" against those whose appearance they didn't like. The new handbook said something to the effect that these were the school rules (no beards, no hair over the ears or collar for men, no bare feet or sandals outside of the dorm, etc.), and that they were not intended as a judgement on anyone's Christianity -- though they did feel that these were the standards that were most suitable for Christian men to adopt!

Did I win or did I lose? I had promised to conform if they would make it an actual rule rather than leaving it up to subjective judgement and then condemning anyone whose judgement differed from their, and I did. And the school continued with basically the same rules for another ten years or more, though in the last 10 or so they have gradually allowed more and more facial hair. So I didn't change anything there. The student handbook did SAY that this was not a judgement on anyone's faith -- but that still seemed to me to be implied. Quite a number of other students who found Ozark's attitude on these things excessive left and went to either Lincoln or San Jose, both of which had reputations for having a more relaxed attitude about these things (but also for being more "liberal" if you listened to other sources). But I can't remember how many left before and how many after I forced this change in the handbook.

Something else I realised that day or soon after, was that this was, in part, a cultural issue. How all kinds of things are interpreted by those who see them is usually culturally bound. Growing up in other countries, I had often been offended on seeing American missionaries imposing their standards on the people of other countries. But I, as a "foreigner" (albeit one with white skin and a U.S. passport), was wanting them to see these issues the way I did. So was I guilty of trying to impose my standards on them? That thought has made me a little hesitant since then to decide which is a "Titus" situation and which is a "Timothy" situation with regard to U.S. cultural norms.

Benjamin Rees, Hong Kong

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2000

Benjamin,

Sorry it took me so long to respond. Our phone service was out. (Comments made to phone and cable repair centers are exempt from the "book of deeds" in Revelation 20, right??)

You asked you I would implement a "Titus" approach. I would and do teach that the Bible does not teach absolute abstinence. I indicate that to hold that "Christians don't do . . ." something that is not forbidden in the Bible is legalism. As for encouraging moderate drinking, that brought to mind an interesting image. "I don't care if it tastes like medicine, drink your Cabernet, it's good for the church!" Seriously, I would not encourage anyone to drink, anymore than I would encourage anyone to play cards or pool, dance or grow a beard. I would also add that there are other issues to consider with drinking (e.g., alchoholism; impaired driving). That does put it in a different category than the other practices. It is something for people to decide themselves. I just make it clear that drinking is not inherently wrong, and saying it is constitutes legalism. (Something we don't have "statistics" for, but which certainly causes a great deal of harm - some of which has eternal implications.)

As for myself, there is a part of me that would be tempted to "make a point" if I thought my having a drink would do that. I am careful though not to offend anyone who has problem with it. That would probably apply even to someone I considered a legalist. Largely because it would hinder any chance at dialogue. You mentioned cultural differences . . . I'm in Arizona, and it really has not been much of an issue.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

OK, I'll preface anything I have to say by saying the following... I am not attempting to establish doctrine by my following statements, they will be merely the ramblings of a true nut-case probably hung- over from that last beer... when was that now? They are also my thinkings aloud and I am ready for a response or even a sharpe rebuke if you see that as neccessary.

Regarding the two different "TYPES" of people who may observe my having an occasional beer thus defined...

Christians... Those who have already come to know the Lord. I will make every attempt to "educate" concerning what the bible has to say about this issue and my Christian Liberty in having that occasional beer. (Only if they should see something wrong with my having imbibed) Aside from that, I doubt very seriously that I could cause someone to "fall away from the Lord" by having a beer. Those who are "stiff-necked" and "legalistic" have far worse problems in their walk with the Lord than with my having a beer, so that point is moot. Aside from it all, I am not here for them, rather for the "Lost".

and that brings me to the other side of the coin...

The Lost... Those who are not Christians yet, I am not interested in living up to the "World's" view of what a Christian "should be"! If the World says that as a Christian I should abstain from playing cards, or dancing, or having an alcoholic beverage... I do not care, for I should be living my life according to what God's view of scripture IS. Those who wish to hold me to their own model and viewpoint, I say: Show me in the scripture. Most would have no understanding of the scripture else they would have already become subservient to them. (the scriptures) I could, at that point, show them what the Bible teaches and that way win them over to Christ. But I will try very hard NOT to be a hypocrite! Nor will I try to hold them to standards not found in the Bible.

These are my thoughts... yours?

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

I often find it humorous that those who are not Christians, who have probably never even read a Bible verse in their lives, are so quick to point out to us that what we are doing is "unchristian." Like, how would they know?

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

I had about given up on anyone making a response to my response, so hadn't checked this thread recently. So my apologies on being a little slow to check in again.

Nate, are you saying that you would "eat meat" in every situation and that you can see no situations at all when you might feel abstinence is required? Or, in other terminology, that every situation is a "Titus" situation, and there are no "Timothy" situations?

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Benjamin...

Abstinence is such a strong word, I try not to think about that one much as I am a single Christian man and it brings up other thoughts.

It also brings up the connotation that it is a "forever" thing. Perhaps my response was a little selfish...

No, I will not ALWAYS "eat meat" in every situation. I have some "statesmanship" in me. I DO pick and choose the times and instances when I choose to imbibe. But I will ALWAYS be ready to push the envelope to help people grow in maturity. Not to offend but to open the door for teaching.

If I live my life worthy to be called a Christian and people see this in me... then my testamony is already established. They will listen to what the Bible says. If however, I am a drunkard and could care less about THEM and choose NOT to live a life for Christ, well then, where are my motives?

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000