Is that a Romans 14 issue?
Don Johnson and Ben Hicks had an interesting conversation about Christian Liberty and drugs/alcohol. It'a a great discussion.
This link starts about 7 minutes in:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-proclaim-defend-podcast/id1680087893?i=1000705940877&r=449
(I believe, Ben): And individual soul liberty is a doctrine that is derived from Romans 14 and 15. We have Christians disagreeing about things like whether or not they should eat meat or if they should observe certain holy days. And Paul is once again clear that we are free in Christ and that freedom should be exercised in a way that leads to greater church unity. ...
(I believe Don: Over 45 years ago, one of our brothers there told me, he says, I don't read the newspaper. And so we got talking about it. And he said, well, I don't do it because I found that I would get up every morning and read the newspaper and not read my Bible. And so I just made up my mind, I'm not taking the newspaper anymore. I'm not. And he says, you know, everybody-- I'm not judging other people. That's just for me, he said. And that's exactly what we're talking about here. He made a decision for himself that this was right for him. And I think that falls right in the Romans 14 category. It's an, we could say, taking the newspaper, maybe we could say it is a non-moral thing.
...
for him, it was hurting his spiritual life. So he decided he would hold a personal standard so that he would walk closer with the Lord. And so I think, now that's, it may be a trivial example.
Don and I have drilled pretty deep and found some fine points to disagree about. So when I hear this, I say, Yes - that's what I think. And it make me ask, I know why I think this is falls "right in the Romans 14 category" - but why does Don think so?
The conviction-against-newspaper example is "trivial." It's also a little uncommon (I haven't come across this particular conviction). I agree that it's "trivial" in a way - it wasn't for him. And that makes him unlikely to judge. However, if this man could see us in 2025, he would very well might say, "Put down Facebook and read your Bibles!"
The uncommonness of it makes it obvious to the man that it's "just for me." And he intuitively knows he shouldn't judge others.
For this guy, since this is "right in the Romans 14 category,"
-
He should follow his stricter conscience and not get the newspaper.
-
He should not call newspapers evil.
-
He should be protected in that his friend shouldn't call him at 6:30am and say, "Did you see that article in the paper about xyz?!"
-
He should not judge others.
-
He should understand he has a "personal standard." (I like that term.)
-
He should understand he has a "personal elective legalism" (I like this term - Jon Nielson, a pastor in Wheaton, IL used it in a podcast recently.)
-
He should understand he's weak (Paul's term, though not used today).
I'm interested in Don's thoughts on 1-7...
On #6, I am not sure what Jon Nielson means by it. If you could post a link I'd appreciate it.
I am not speaking for Ben here. He has done some really good work on 1 Cor 8-10. I think he wrote his dissertation on it. (Southwestern?? can't remember exactly where.)
So here is one way I distinguish Rm 14 and 1Co 8-10 these days. (As mentioned in a private note to Dan, I think about these passages quite a bit and am always interested in writing about it.)
- Romans 14 is about non-moral issues about which someone has a conscience.
- 1 Cor 8-10 is about questionable practices that clearly have a connection with Biblical prohibitions (for spiritual and/or moral reasons). In this case, eating meat offered to idols was prohibited by the Council of Jerusalem.
I don't know if that helps any, but I'm glad to continue to discuss.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So here is one way I distinguish Rm 14 and 1Co 8-10 these days. (As mentioned in a private note to Dan, I think about these passages quite a bit and am always interested in writing about it.)
- Romans 14 is about non-moral issues about which someone has a conscience.
- 1 Cor 8-10 is about questionable practices that clearly have a connection with Biblical prohibitions (for spiritual and/or moral reasons). In this case, eating meat offered to idols was prohibited by the Council of Jerusalem.
I don't know if that helps any, but I'm glad to continue to discuss.
Since you mentioned the Council of Jerusalem, I got to thinking about one of the other prohibitions from that Council. Believers were commanded not to consume blood. Drinking a cup of blood would definitely be prohibited, but what about using blood as an ingredient? Would blood sausage be off-limits? Further still, would eating a steak rare be prohibited? If believers arrive at different understandings of this prohibition, would those different understandings result in a Romans 14 issue, even though we are talking about a direct prohibition?
The eating of blood of forbidden in the Noahic covenant as well which is still binding. I personally apply this by not eating rare steak, but others may not see this application.
- Romans 14 is about non-moral issues about which someone has a conscience.
Ok, well that is what I am interested in.
I wouldn’t summarize Romans 14 like that. I say it’s about issues that some Christians see as moral issues (and which for them truly are) but others see as non-moral issue (and which for them truly are not).
AND (Don, this is the point of this thread) your example (Mr Anti-Newspaper) fits better with mine than yours.
Mr. Anti-Newspaper (call him Andy) has a good application of biblical principles. The newspaper is not evil, but in his life, it is. This could change, but as he is currently thinking, subscribing to the newspaper isn’t “non-moral.”
I don’t think my friend saw it as a moral issue, but that is irrelevant. The issue in Rm 14 is that the practice was not inherently moral. Paul was fine with the weak holding their scruples, otherwise he would have forbidden the practice. He just didn’t want them to demand everyone else hold their scruples
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I don’t think my friend saw it as a moral issue, but that is irrelevant.
Actually, that's the point for this thread. (There are good comments by Josh and Kevin, but they are off-topic.)
As I pointed out, you and Ben agree later that that "personal standard" is trivial. I think that triviality obscures the sense in which it's a moral issue for him. Three factors as tend to obscure the serious moral nature of these types of "personal standards." (I'll add my rating of each for the Anti-Newspaper conviction.)
- Triviality - the “fall” of being offended isn’t what most think of as a significant sin (4)
- Rarity - the person with the conviction is aware that he’s alone with it. (5)
- Omission - the conviction relates to the doing of something good more than the not doing of something held to be bad. (4, because walking with the Lord is the real target)
Those tell us it's no big deal. Because of the triviality, it feels weird to make a big moral deal of it. But I do think this is, to him, a moral issue. On the podcast, you seem to agree:
Don (P&D): You know, it's, non, non, it's amoral, right? It just has no moral value. Everybody, I think even this brother would say, it's not a sin to take the newspaper.
But he, but for him, it was hurting his spiritual life. So he decided he would hold a personal standard so that he would walk closer with the Lord.
If it's a commitment made so that he would walk closer with the Lord, I think that's something that I would say is moral for him.
The only sense that taking the newspaper could be considered a moral issue is if he was violating his conscience (whatever is not of faith is sin). He clearly stated to me that he didn't think taking the newspaper was a sin for him or anyone else. He thought it was better for him not to. I'd take this as a wisdom basis for making the decision, not a moral basis.
I don't follow your rating system. Not sure what you are getting at there.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
He thought it was better for him not to. I'd take this as a wisdom basis for making the decision, not a moral basis.
I'm not sure why you pit wisdom against morality. If something is wise with regard to our spiritual walk, that seems morally better. We are commanded to be wise.
Assume (I'm going a bit beyond your story) that he tried, a few times, getting the newspaper again and each time found that he ended up "wasting his time" and failing to have devotional time.
At some point the decision to re-subscribe would be (for him) a decision to devalue his devotional time.
Here is the OED on the ethical sense of "moral"
a. Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.
b. Of an action: having the property of being right or wrong, or good or evil; voluntary or deliberate and therefore open to ethical appraisal. Of a person, etc.: capable of moral action; able to choose between right and wrong, or good and evil.
c. Of knowledge, an opinion, etc.: relating to the nature and application of the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil.
d. Of an idea, speech, etc.: involving ethical praise or blame.
e. Of a feeling: arising from an apprehension or sense of the goodness or badness of an action, character, etc.
An action that doesn't have the property of right or wrong in itself is amoral. The taking of the newspaper has no moral value, you can take it or not take it, neither action in itself has any good/bad or right/wrong quality.
If you go against your conscience, ie, if you think something is bad, but still do it, you have violated your conscience. That is wrong, "whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
If you apply wisdom or prudence to the use of an amoral thing, or take an action that is amoral, that is wisdom or prudence. It isn't right or wrong. It isn't even "right for you" or "wrong for you." It is just wisdom or prudence.
Wisdom might say, I shouldn't go into bookstores because I'll just spend money. If I violate my wisdom, I haven't sinned, but I might have been unwise. (Barnes & Noble, here I come...)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
First, I agree that morality isn't relative.
I’m surprised you would narrow the definition of morality like this.
The Bible contradicts that limited view of morality.
“Better”
Don: “He thought it was better for him not to.”
Phil 1:9-11 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment,10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
I think you are right about saying “he thought it was better.” And especially here where it was spiritually better, I think that fits into him discerning and approving what is excellent. What is “better”—legitimately better for your Christian walk is good. Following it is about "being pure and blameless...filled with the fruit of righteousness..."
Lawful...helpful
Last, Paul said (1Cor 6:12) “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything.”
I use that to argue that addicting substances (including alcohol, if addicting for you) are morally wrong. I don't know if you do, but I am by no means unusual in that argument.
So I see a category of morality even for things that are, of themselves, lawful.
For your categorization to work, "not reading the newspaper" must be in the excellent category, making "reading the newspaper" not excellent and, presumably sinful.
If it is sinful for him, it must be sinful for all, or else you are categorizing wrong.
The question to read/not read the newspaper, as I see it is a truly neutral question. It isn't a matter of excellence or not.
It is rather a matter of wisdom, my friend is making a choice (not holding a conviction) that not reading is better for him.
If he were holding it as a conviction (no one should read a newspaper), I think then we are in the Romans 14 category more clearly. So perhaps I misspoke in using it as an illustration. He had a preference, or he made a choice on the basis of wisdom, but he was not operating as a conviction that reading the newspaper in itself was wrong.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I get what you're saying. And here's the weird part. What you're saying now is more what I understand your position on Rom14 to be. But in your example:
Mr Anti-Newspaper: And so I just made up my mind, I'm not taking the newspaper anymore. I'm not. And he says, you know, everybody-- I'm not judging other people. That's just for me, he said. And that's exactly what we're talking about here.
In the natural flow of how you used this, look at what his heart was. "That's just for me"--what's just for him? The standard (I made up my mind) and the judging (not judging "other people"--just me). IOW, it seems that he, himself, would feel guilty if he subscribed to the newspaper again, especially if again it hurt his walk.
If it is sinful for him, it must be sinful for all, or else you are categorizing wrong.
The question to read/not read the newspaper, as I see it is a truly neutral question. It isn't a matter of excellence or not.
Well, I don't agree--but I think you already know that.
Don, let’s say that Mr. Anti-Newspaper has tried subscribing a few times. Each time he found it interferes with his quiet time too much, and returned to his “personal standard” of not getting the newspaper.
Then he hears from a friend that you mentioned him as an example of a Romans 14 issue. So he writes you this note:
Dear Don,
I heard that you think my personal standard of not getting the newspaper is a Romans 14 issue. That means I’m “weak.” I take it that you think I should be able to get the newspaper? Should I subscribe to it? Because I think I’m following the Lord my very best by not getting it. I don’t want to be a weak Christian.
Sincerely,
Mr. Anti-Newspaper
How would you answer?
Actually, Dear Dan...
First, the more you force me to be precise, I don't think this is a Roman's 14 issue after all. I think I was mistaken in saying that. The man didn't hold it as being the right thing to do for everyone, just the wise thing to do for himself.
Now, let's say Mr. Anti-Newspaper really does hold that it is wrong for Christians to take the newspaper, putting this squarely in Romans 14 territory.
- He can't prove that this issue is wrong for everyone, he just thinks it is wrong for everyone for various reasons (any reasons will do)
- He is therefore weak (in conscience) about this issue.
- In that case, no, I would not tell him to violate his conscience.
- But I would tell him to allow others the freedom to follow their consciences when they are equally convinced that newspapers are OK.
If something is clearly prohibited by Scripture by strong Scriptural statements or strong analogies (like say, marijuana, as Ben was talking about), then it is prohibited for all Christians.
If something isn't inherently wrong in itself, someone thinks its wrong, but can't prove it as above, then it falls under Romans 14 and brothers must allow others their differences.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Hey Don, I started writing a response about why I think your intuitive use of Rom14 was actually correct. But we’ve been there so many times. Let me try…
Dear Don,
I’ve been thinking about this in the light of Romans 14 and I was thinking that makes a lot of sense. I think—am persuaded—that the newspaper is wrong, so it is—for me. That fits with what I was thinking. The weak in Rome were still the weak, even if they obeyed “don’t judge.” And so I honor the Lord by not getting it and my brother honors the Lord by reading it. And I just asked my friend not to email me with news links in the morning, which when I explained why I have this personal standard, he totally understood why he shouldn’t. (And I think my commitment to Bible reading was convicting for him.)
But then I saw your response to Dan that this isn’t a Romans 14 issue after all. Now I’m even more confused. If I’m right, and I really do think I am, then I think you’re saying that must be right for everyone—they just don’t know it so they are failing. So I guess I need to rethink my approach of thinking of this as personal standard that’s “just for me.”
Exhort one another to avoid sin (Hebrews 3:13), stir up one another to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24), rebuke (Luke 17:3, 1 Timothy 5:20), use the Word to reprove & correct (2 Timothy 3:16), restore a sinning brother or sister (Galatians 6:1), and bring back a fellow Christian from wandering (James 5:19).
I really should be confronting my brothers about this, right? They’re going to feel judged. And really that’s fine. This Romans 14 “don’t judge” command isn’t for me—that’s for people with wrong ideas about morals. 1 Cor 5 says we judge those that are within. I’m teaching Sunday school next week and I think I’ll spend some time on newspapers.
Sincerely, Mr. Anti-Newspaper
Just for clarification on the rare meet and blood issue. The most common response I find on that subject says, "That juice isn’t blood; it’s a mix of water and myoglobin, a protein that hasn’t had much contact with oxygen or heat." Further, even if it is blood, why would cooking the blood well done make it okay to eat? Would cooking change the composition to make it not blood?
Even the Jewish site Chadab.org says, "The reddish liquid that remains inside the meat after this procedure is not halachically considered blood; it is the meat's "juice," and is 100% kosher."
I butcher a lot of our own meat and there is definitely a difference between the blood that we drain out at the beginning and the juices we see in the meat.
Dan,
I'm just having trouble following what you are saying. My friend didn't take the position you are suggesting for Mr. Anti-Newspaper.
So... I haven't replied because I am having trouble sorting everything out.
I think it is better to just discuss the passage on its merits.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I realize that he didn't say what I said. I expect he was thinking in terms of it being a Rom14 issue and "just for me" was him not wanting to bind the conscience of others.
The reason you pushed away from classifying this as Rom 14 is that you universalize morality (Don: "If it is sinful for him, it must be sinful for all, or else you are categorizing wrong.").
Here's why I think your intuitive categorization of Rom14 is right:
1. Principles (including wisdom and "better"/"excellent") are universal.
So the universal expression might be: If something is keeping you from walking with the Lord, cut that out (Rom 13:14 "make not provision for the flesh," Matt 5:30 "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off"). On this basis, it is sinful for you not to cut that out.
But the individual expression (conviction, or "personal standard") of "that" is different for everyone. Therefore, the individual expression of "what is sinful" is different for everyone.
2. ---pending agreement with above---
But the individual expression (conviction, or "personal standard") of "that" is different for everyone. Therefore, the individual expression of "what is sinful" is different for everyone.
No, what is sinful in Rm 14 is violating your conscience, not differing personal standards.
To give another example, a former pastor told a story of a young woman who they had live with them for a time. This lady thought it was a sin to drink soda pop of any kind (maybe it is???). Rather than try to re-educate her conscience on this point, the pastor and his family accommodated her weakness. I think the rationale was, there are more important discipleship matters to deal with than the question of soda pop.
For that person to drink the pop wasn't merely a personal standard, it was a tenet of belief. That does fall into Romans 14. If she drank the soda pop, she wouldn't have sinned in the drinking of the soda but in violating her conscience.
Whereas the newspaper guy didn't think taking the newspaper was sinful, even for him. It was just better for him not to.
Two different categories.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Dan: But the individual expression (conviction, or "personal standard") of "that" is different for everyone. Therefore, the individual expression of "what is sinful" is different for everyone.
Don: No, what is sinful in Rm 14 is violating your conscience, not differing personal standards.
Ok - but I didn't mention Rom 14 in that quote.
The universal expression I mentioned was: If something is keeping you from walking with the Lord, cut that out
Based on: Rom 13:14 "make not provision for the flesh,"
That's a command, right?
And: Matt 5:30 "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off"
That's a command intended for application to other things besides literal hands and eyes, right?
Discussion