Commonplace

“The “weaker brother” argument often serves as a justification for self-imposed (and institutionally…”

“The “weaker brother” argument often serves as a justification for self-imposed (and institutionally mandated) teetotalism. And for good reason. It is a scriptural admonition that must be prayerfully considered. However, as pastor Chuck Swindoll has said, “Be careful, there are some people out there who are professional weaker brethren.” Likewise, we should be leery of professional weaker brother arguments that would rein in all Christian liberty because of the abstract concern that innocuous behavior might cause someone, somewhere, somehow, to stumble.

Although I tend to refrain from consuming alcohol—I have a difficult enough time getting people to take me seriously when I’m stone cold sober—my own view on the issue is similar to that held by theologian D.A. Carson:

“[I]f I’m in one of those parts [of the United States] and everyone’s going to be all upset if I drink alcohol, then—I don’t drink alcohol, it’s not worth the fight and so on. But if somebody says to me, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I will say, “pass the Bourgogne’!” Do you see? Because you do not ever allow anything to jeopardize the absolute sufficiency of Christ. Not anything!”

[…]

Where does Christian liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such boundaries, especially for young Christians. But we should be careful about where we mark those lines—especially when they put Jesus on the wrong side.”

– Joe Carter, “What Would Jesus Drink?

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1QRuoDB

via IFTTT

“It wasn’t even intentional on my part. I just noticed a few weeks ago that I had stopped describing…”

“It wasn’t even intentional on my part. I just noticed a few weeks ago that I had stopped describing myself to people as an “evangelical.” I had begun, subconsciously, to say that I am a “gospel Christian.” When I caught myself doing this, I wondered why and the answer wasn’t long in coming.

The word “evangelical” has become almost meaningless this year, and in many ways the word itself is at the moment subverting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[…]

For years, secular progressives have said that evangelical social action in America is not about religious conviction but all about power. They have implied that the goal of the Religious Right is to cynically use the “moral” to get to the “majority,” not the other way around.

This year, a group of high-profile old-guard evangelicals has proven these critics right. But thank God, that’s not the whole story.

The word “evangelical” isn’t, first of all, about American politics. The word is rooted in the Greek word for gospel, good news for sinners through the life, death, resurrection and reign of Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God and anointed ruler of the cosmos.

[…]

Evangelical is a magnificent word — a word that resonates with the gospel dissent of Martin Luther and the gospel crusades of Billy Graham. More than that, it is rooted in the New Testament itself that tells us that Jesus saves. And I’m not ready to give it up yet.

But you will forgive me if, at least until this crazy campaign year is over, I choose just to say that I’m a gospel Christian.”

– Russell Moore, “Russell Moore: Why this election makes me hate the word ‘evangelical’”

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/219sB2I

via IFTTT

“What should we say about that? Does that come under the same Pauline strictures? The web, after all,…”

“What should we say about that? Does that come under the same Pauline strictures? The web, after all, is not only filled with unbelievers but is a notorious free-for-all. Civil courts have rules of evidence and mechanisms to confirm or refute allegations. The web has none of these controls, and taking a case to the web is like taking it to a court where everyone is judge, jury, and executioner. People who have no right to have an opinion get to express an opinion. Is that a good place for Christians to be wrangling with each other?

[…]

We want vindication, and the web seems to provide the opportunity. That’s not really true, because web disputes are more inconclusive than any court case could be. No internet dispute is ever over. People just move on to inspect the next crash site.

That laborious, flawed, church-based way of resolution seems to be the method Paul lays out. We may do it badly, but God has entrusted the judgment of the world and angels to the saints, so we had better start getting some practice.

The fundamental is: Is Jesus honored when Christians take one another to task before a watching world?”

– Peter Leithart, “Before Unbelievers”

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1p0ACLR

via IFTTT