Christian Liberty

by Dr. Steve Davis and Dr. John Davis
The “N” Train runs from Coney Island in Brooklyn to Astoria in Queens, taking the long route as an express train through Manhattan. Half the time it runs above ground and includes views of Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan as it travels across the Manhattan Bridge and views of Astoria and Long Island City as it runs through Queens. The route of the “N” Train captures the ethnic diversity of the city as the train winds through Russian, Hasidic, Chinese, Italian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and other ethnic neighborhoods. The economic diversity of the city is also reflected in its path as it stops in a lower-income area like Sunset Park, which is situated among a flurry of small businesses in Chinatown, or at the upscale stores of both Fifth Avenue and Lexington Avenue. If you love to eat, then you can enjoy the cuisines of the world starting with borsch in Coney Island, ending with fried kefalotiri cheese in Astoria, and enjoying the rest of the world in between.
read more

Few passages of Scripture are more popular among contemporary Christians than 1 Corinthians 9:19‐23. Especially fashionable is Paul’s line in verse 22 about becoming “all things to all men.” This passage is commonly taken to mean that effective evangelism requires Christians to imitate the people around them. Many evangelicals cannot even imagine this interpretation being mistaken. It is even repeated by some fairly reputable commentators (Gordon Fee, for example) who, however, offer few reasons for accepting it.
Few such reasons exist. The popular interpretation is far more influenced by wishful thinking than it is by any factor in the context of 1 Corinthians 9. In fact, a careful study of the passage in its context yields quite a different interpretation.

1 Corinthians 9 is the center of an extended section dealing with meat offered to idols. This kind of meat was sold at a discount in the shambles and was often served in the homes of non‐Christians. Apparently, the Corinthian believers had asked Paul whether Christians could be permitted to eat meat which had been consecrated in idolatrous worship.

Broadly, Paul answers this question in two ways. In chapter 8, he argues that an idol is nothing. Since meat offered to idols has in reality been offered to nothing, it is not intrinsically tainted or polluted. All other things being equal, it may be eaten with safety.
read more

Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. (Acts 15:37-39, NKJV)

There is much we don’t know about this conversation between Paul and Barnabas. But we know it didn’t end in shrugs and placid smiles. The word for “contention” (paroxusmos.) suggests feverish intensity,¹ and the two men found it impossible to work together.

We also know something else. Neither Paul nor Barnabas had any direct revelation from God on the question. If the Spirit had said to either of them “take Mark” or “don’t take Mark,” there would have been no dispute. They were both deeply committed to obedience.

Compromise or stand?

So how did they handle their disagreement? Believers who disagree about questions God has not answered in Scripture usually handle the conflict in one of two ways. (1) They compromise, yielding to pressure exerted by others. (2) They stand firm and claim—either directly or by implication—that their position is the biblical one and has God’s authority behind it. But there is a third option. When emotions are hot, we tend to run right past it, never noticing it’s there. Depending on the mood we’re in, we either compromise or condemn and fail to notice that neither is the right response.

It appears that Paul, or Barnabas, or both made this mistake. Though neither of them chose compromise regarding John Mark, at least one of them chose condemnation. Otherwise the impasse would have been resolved more congenially (though it might still have required a split).read more