A Link Regarding Differing Convictions

[WannaWitness]

This is an interesting study regarding the conscience levels when it comes to convictions which vary from one Christian to another. I ran across it last night; it really covers a lot of ground, and tries to bring together fellow believers who do not always agree on things.

Personally, I think I vary from "sensitive strong" and a "sensitive abstainer", depending on the issue. Because I believe I have certain convictions and still try to respect those who don't share them. I also know that there are people who have convictions that I do not share, yet I respect them as I feel they are serving Christ the best way they know how.

The study also talks about the extremists on both ends (the "tempters" and the "legalists") and how they seem to feel superior to those of us who feel we have reasonable standards.

I honestly hope this is found to be helpful.

Living Word Heartbeat: Dealing with the Corporate Conscience of the Church (Part 1) by Pastor Carmelo Caparros II | Living Word Christian Churches of Cebu International, Inc.

Note: If this thread is better in a different part of CF, feel free to let me know.

 

[WannaWitness]

(deleted post)

 

[Norah63]

That was an interesting read. Thanks for the post .
Having been around most of the different types, it still comes down to where the
personal walk with the Lord is for each.
I have been attacked for not going to bars, told I was religious spirit. Had never heard that one before. Always liked bars before salvation, not so afterwords. Learning from Jesus is better than learning from other Christians, cause they usually peg you from their own level of maturity.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm not sure I totally buy the article's categories, but in terms of them, I'd be somewhere in between the Sensitive Strong and the Tempter Strong. I'm sensitive to the convictions of others, but they're their convictions, not mine, and I won't be ruled by theirs, nor do I expect them to be ruled by mine.

The author gave the example of a Sensitive Strong carrying a KJV Bible to a KJVO church. Well, I suppose I'd do that too if I were visiting one... but I probably wouldn't visit because I so strongly disagree with them on probably a whole range of issues besides Bible versions.

 

[WannaWitness]

Of course, I'm not saying I totally agree with everything in the article, but I get the idea. I found an article that may be even better than this one that I can post a little later on regarding this type of issue. I really don't want to offend anyone.

 

[hedrick]

The sermon is pretty directly based on 1 Cor. Unfortunately it's harder to carry it out in the real world than it sounds. The problem is that it really only applies to things where there isn't a clear Biblical position and reasonable people can differ. But almost no one is willing to admit to being in the position that Paul calls weak. In most disagreements the weak party believes that Scripture is clear in prohibiting whatever action we're talking about.

Indeed from the examples cited in the sermon, I'll bet that the pastor would be in the same position in most of the controversies in my own church. I'll bet he would not consider the disagreements to be of the sort that are open to disagreement, and thus would be someone I would call legalist in terms of his sermon, but that he would (as always in such situations) claim to be defending the clear teaching of Scripture. No one is willing to admit to being a legalist, and it's only in the most unimportant issues that they're willing to admit to being (in his terms) weak.

 

[Norah63]

sounded like vegetarianism was a weak one.
Most pastors won't take a stand on most subjects, unless it involves the doctrine of that particular church. Everyone needs to seek their own spiritual level of fellowship. If you want strong meat, don't look to liberal churches. And If you want to do what ever you want to do, there is plenty of places to attend for that kind of church.
Looking for the next post WannaWittness, sounds like another interesting read.

 

[WannaWitness]

Here is another link for our reading pleasure; it's merely touching on how the extremists on both ends of the spectrum err, only going into a bit more detail.

Enjoying God Ministries

 

[Norah63]

Nice read. Guess it comes down to what each, considers in their own conscience, is permissible or not for them to engage in.
Weak or strong, each must walk their own walk. Don't think it is up to anyone to try and be the voice of reason for anyone else. Enough for keeping our own porch clean.
Beware of endless questions that gender strife. For myself I keep the gospel simple and full of joy.

 

[Whisper84]

This quote set off a red flag for me in that last article:

"To be free from the sort of scruples which trouble the weak is in itself a precious gift. The inward freedom does not have to be expressed outwardly in order to be enjoyed: one may enjoy it in one's own inner life --- a secret known only to oneself and God. And, if a weak brother is going to be hurt by one's giving outward expression to one's freedom, then one should be content with the inward experience of it, of which God is the only witness"

I understand that in certain situations that approach may work... but that is exactly the kind of "freedom" the legalistic leaders at my old church allowed. It didn't matter to them what was going on in a person's heart, as long as they continued to follow the leaders' rules and traditions outwardly.

The problem is, in my experience, weaker brothers and legalists tend to run in groups. Also, most of the legalists in my life are masters at using guilt to manipulate people into giving up the outward expressions of their liberties, thus creating an environment in which the weaker brothers never have reason to question their teaching.

Paul and Jesus both took on legalists without regard for their feelings, yet they exercised gentleness with the weak. I guess my question is, how do you separate the groups?

Once I was even approached by a weaker brother who begged me to stop "hurting" the controlling leaders by disagreeing with them.

 

[WannaWitness]

This quote set off a red flag for me in that last article:



I understand that in certain situations that approach may work... but that is exactly the kind of "freedom" the legalistic leaders at my old church allowed. It didn't matter to them what was going on in a person's heart, as long as they continued to follow the leaders' rules and traditions outwardly.

The problem is, in my experience, weaker brothers and legalists tend to run in groups. Also, most of the legalists in my life are masters at using guilt to manipulate people into giving up the outward expressions of their liberties, thus creating an environment in which the weaker brothers never have reason to question their teaching.

Paul and Jesus both took on legalists without regard for their feelings, yet they exercised gentleness with the weak. I guess my question is, how do you separate the groups?

Once I was even approached by a weaker brother who begged me to stop "hurting" the controlling leaders by disagreeing with them.

I see what you're saying, as well. However, I was taking the article as a whole; and the basic message that brothers and sisters in the Lord can see various issues in different ways, and should still be able to respect one another despite that. But there still lies the fact that some people are so set in how they're going to think that they leave no room for other ideas; it's basically an attitude of (I guess you could say) "us versus them", or "we're right and everyone else is wrong". Extremists on both ends tend toward these mindsets. It's not the fact that someone has a certain conviction; it's the air of superiority and haughtiness coming off of such people just for having these views, and one sort of feels a little intimidated around them, fearing they will be offended if you so much as smile the wrong way at them (that's why I can see your point). I knew somebody some years back who was like that. He believed CCM was "unanointed", and was so set in that thought that he wouldn't even allow his kids to listen to it. So one day, this guy popped over for a visit. I was playing a Crystal Lewis tape at the time. Fearing that he would view me as a common heathen, I scrambled around to shut the music off. Later on, this same man made a comment on a woman's shorts (which from what I recall, were quite modest), and remarked that she needed to "put on some clothes", then on a different date, stood up in church and started bragging about how "holy" his family was, not unlike the parable of the Pharisee "praying" in the temple in the Gospel of Luke.

However, I know from experience that not everyone who has strong convictions regarding something or another is necessarily a legalist. And I can give you a couple of examples of that, as well. A pastor's wife I knew at a church I attended several years ago was strictly skirts only. I never, for one single moment, saw this lady in a pair of pants, and even at laid-back church functions (like picnics and such) she would wear T-shirts/polo shirts, long denim skirts, and canvas sneakers. But I don't remember her ever rubbing it in anyone else's face, at the time. After all, there were many women attending that church who wore pants, but she didn't seem to care what other people wore; it was just a choice. Today, I know a lady who only uses the King James Version of the Bible (even to teach her elementary-aged Sunday School class). But she is a very nice, sweet lady of God, and anyone who knows her would see the love of Christ all over her; therefore, I do not see her as a legalist. She seems to me to be KJVO merely for the sake of sticking to tradition (as opposed to following a "movement"), so it is because of this that she has my respect.

And therein lies the difference between a Christian with a heartfelt conviction who views it merely as that, and a condemning legalist whose ideas go beyond mere conviction.

I hope this clears things up for you a little more. I am truly not wishing for this to turn into any debate, nor to cause any confusion; just to contribute what I feel to be a truly balanced take on these (and other such) issues.

 

[Whisper84]

I'm not trying to argue. I actually thought that article was quite good up until that quote, and I appreciated that he went on to talk about how to tell whether you're dealing with a legalist or a weaker brother. That one quote just stuck out to me as... odd.

I know people like the ones you talked about too. More conservative than me, but very friendly and understanding toward believers with other points of view. They're definitely out there!

What do you do with people like that first man though? Especially when they're in positions of leadership. The "heartfelt personal conviction" crowd aren't usually the ones quoting Romans 14 to silence disagreement.

I know there is a time and place to set aside personal liberty for the benefit of another person. I've done it before and I'm sure I'll do it again. I guess I'm looking for a more constructive answer for when legalists attack than the "duck and run" advice I've gotten before.

Maybe this isn't the thread for that question, it's okay if that's the case!

 

[WannaWitness]

I'm not trying to argue. I actually thought that article was quite good up until that quote, and I appreciated that he went on to talk about how to tell whether you're dealing with a legalist or a weaker brother. That one quote just stuck out to me as... odd.

I know people like the ones you talked about too. More conservative than me, but very friendly and understanding toward believers with other points of view. They're definitely out there!

What do you do with people like that first man though? Especially when they're in positions of leadership. The "heartfelt personal conviction" crowd aren't usually the ones quoting Romans 14 to silence disagreement.

I know there is a time and place to set aside personal liberty for the benefit of another person. I've done it before and I'm sure I'll do it again. I guess I'm looking for a more constructive answer for when legalists attack than the "duck and run" advice I've gotten before.

Maybe this isn't the thread for that question, it's okay if that's the case!

The thing about a legalist is that there is usually nothing you can say or do in regards to an "answer", seeing that many are so set in their ways that it would take an absolute miracle to make them budge. And it's the same way with the extremists on the passive/permissive end, as well. So, that is something I cannot answer, other than to just take it for what it is. As for any article I might post at any given time (including this one), I find a few things here and there that I don't necessarily agree with, and occasionally a particular example that may be used to illustrate a certain point is mediocre at best. But, I just weed out some of those particular things, and focus on what the main point is.

As for Romans 14, it does seem that the more "moderate" among us seem to be drawn to that Scripture. I consider it one of my favorites, as it shows how Christians should be respecting one another, despite their differences. That isn't to say that I don't have my own personal convictions about a few things that are "doubtful"; I just try my best not to be judgmental of those who might have a little different take on them, than I do.

Yes, feel free to ask questions and discuss anything regarding these articles and personal convictions. That's what this thread is for. And I can answer to the best of my ability, knowing that we all somehow will learn and benefit from one another.

 

[JCFantasy23]

wow, what's dugo-dugo? LOL

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Can a Christian eat “dugo-dugo”?[/FONT]

 

[WannaWitness]

wow, what's dugo-dugo? LOL

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Can a Christian eat “dugo-dugo”?[/FONT]

That I do not know. I was scratching my head on that one, myself. Maybe I can look it up. It almost looked like something the writer threw in as a joke, or something.

 

[WannaWitness]

This is a recipe I found for "dugo-dugo". Reading through the ingredients, I spotted frozen pig blood listed among them. Which may explain why it might be questionable in some circles. As for me, while I appreciate that it's apparently a cultural delicacy, I wouldn't have a bite of the stuff for a million dollars.

Cebuano Dugo Dugo Recipe

Also, looking closer at the article, the author is a pastor from Cebu, a province in the Philippines, and "dugo-dugo" must be part of their cuisine.

 

[Whisper84]

Yeah, I think I'll be avoiding Dugo Dugo too.

Something kind of clicked in my head last night when I was thinking about this... it had to do with the name of this group actually. The idea of trying to be a bridge builder.

I think I've been trying desperately to build a bridge of understanding between myself and my old church leaders, and assuming that it wasn't working because I was doing something wrong. Like, if I could express myself better they would understand. When really, the fact is, they don't want a bridge. They don't want to understand what convinced me to leave their way of life.

I know it's kind of a different issue than the one those articles meant to bring out. I hope there aren't many churches who misuse the principles in Romans 14 the way my old church did.

Thanks for your understanding WannaWitness!

 

[WannaWitness]

Yeah, I think I'll be avoiding Dugo Dugo too.

Something kind of clicked in my head last night when I was thinking about this... it had to do with the name of this group actually. The idea of trying to be a bridge builder.

I think I've been trying desperately to build a bridge of understanding between myself and my old church leaders, and assuming that it wasn't working because I was doing something wrong. Like, if I could express myself better they would understand. When really, the fact is, they don't want a bridge. They don't want to understand what convinced me to leave their way of life.

I know it's kind of a different issue than the one those articles meant to bring out. I hope there aren't many churches who misuse the principles in Romans 14 the way my old church did.

Thanks for your understanding WannaWitness!

You're welcome; I try.

The thing with Romans 14 (as with other particular Scriptures) is that there are so many different thoughts regarding what it really means that when people get together and present those ideas, it can be really confusing. Especially when it comes to the verses about eating meat and observing certain days. Well, there are some that think that it is talking about those issues alone, and it is. But going back to verse one, it mentions "doubtful things", which to me, cover a number of issues, then goes on to using eating meat and such as examples. I follow such discussions from time to time, so I know what some of them entail. But see, the strictest of the strict (or some of them, anyway) might tend to believe that Romans 14 is only brought up as an excuse for lukewarm lifestyles, and in some cases, this might be true. After all, I agree that there is no such thing as halfway following Christ; we either do or we don't, and we have that established. What a legalist fails to see regarding this chapter is that it is not about the actual basics of the faith and plan of salvation which should be as a given that all believers should agree on, but the so-called "secondary issues" on which all Christians differ so much. And as we all know, this issue alone is one of them. So we have the legalists who believe others are using the Scripture to "live as they want", and some who actually do, which make it bad on those who simply see the Scripture for what it is, which to me, is saying that we as believers are all different and unique in the way we serve the one and only holy God we all love. After all, He was the one who created such diversity.

I may have more interesting links to post at a later time.

 

[Norah63]

The center of the bridge building can only be done by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Our cooperation in working togeather with every part of the body. The weak and the strong parts sharing togeather. As Whisper said those in leadership dont like questions. Guess they think all
should see it just as they do. That to me is a weak brother, should not be inleadership at all.
Has anyone else heard it said that; ' the ground is all level at the foot of the cross'.
That is the blessing of these forums.
Anyway good thread regarding diffrent convictions, they seem to change as we mature in faith.

 

[WannaWitness]

The center of the bridge building can only be done by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Our cooperation in working togeather with every part of the body. The weak and the strong parts sharing togeather. As Whisper said those in leadership dont like questions. Guess they think all
should see it just as they do. That to me is a weak brother, should not be inleadership at all.
Has anyone else heard it said that; ' the ground is all level at the foot of the cross'.
That is the blessing of these forums.
Anyway good thread regarding diffrent convictions, they seem to change as we mature in faith.

You have described the "unteachable" types; they seem to be the ones who put on the act that they know everything, and only they have the right answer, closed to any other points of view. We get this not only on the far legalistic side, but on the overly permissive side, as well. The Bridge Builder (or "moderate") is open-minded. Not too open so as to be accepting of every fly-by-night philosophy out there, but open enough to allow that Christians learn from one another and all have something valid to contribute, different as we are. And this, along with the realization of our common bond of Christ as our Lord and Savior, is what brings us together.

Thanks for the nice words about my thread. To tell the truth, I wasn't really sure about how it would pan out, with the way people have been known to nitpick and run away with things, and there have been a few instances that I have started threads and nearly regretted doing so. However, I do not have that feeling about this one, as I can see an atmosphere of encouragement. This is the way it should be.