Peace and Mutual Edification Pt.3: The burden of the strong

Thus far we've looked at how we need to interact with the world around us, particularly with regard to civil authorities. Paul outlines this in Romans 13. Now let's turn our attention to another matter, how we in the church are to deal with one another.

Like with the secular world, we can expect to find conflict and disagreement from time to time. How we respond to these conflicts is of the utmost importance. First, let's look at the dynamics of the relationships. With regard to the secular world, God calls us to be "holy," or set apart. Yet in chapter 13, we see that even despite this separation, we are to be respectful and honorable toward our secular neighbors and authorities. In short, we're not to conform, but we're also not to disrespectfully defy or antagonize those with whom we have conflict. How much more so then should we take on an attitude of respect and honor with our Christian neighbors with whom we come into conflict?

Paul begins chapter 14 with a hypothetical conflict between a "faith-based" vegetarian, whom Paul describes as "weak," and one who "eats everything." Paul clearly paints the one who eats everything as the stronger brother here. In context, we can presume that this brother represents the one in a "new" relationship with Christ who enjoys the freedom this relationship brings. On the other hand, the vegetarian brother is maintaining a legalistic attitude from the old covenant. He has yet to realize the fullness of freedom in Christ. Given that context, it is interesting to examine Paul's words and his instructions to the "stronger" brother.

First note that his instruction is to the stronger brother, not the weaker. The onus here is clearly on the part of the stronger to not sit in judgment of the weaker. Paul's clear implication in the first eight verses of chapter 14 is that "strong" and "weak" are matters of perception. His advice echoes that of Christ who cautioned us to "judge not, lest we be judged." Paul is not relativistically asserting that one brother's belief is as good as another's, as some in the post-modern church are wont to do. No, Paul here clearly defines which point of view is "right" and which is "wrong," and he recognizes that these matters are "disputable." What he does address, however, is the attitude of the right to the wrong.

In the Greek, the world for "weak" Paul uses here is synonymous with "ill" or "failing." In other words, our brother's viewpoint is not rebellious or defiant, but it is one that renders him spiritually "sick." It implies not a permanent condition, that would require isolation or palliative care, but a temporary one, that can be improved depending on the "treatment" by the stronger brother. This should inform our response to our brethren in Christ with whom we have conflict.

How did Jesus minister to the sick, particularly the lepers and those whom society had given up on? Did he judge them incurable and leave them to die in their isolation, or did he come to them? Paul is clear here: even if we believe a brother to be in error, we are to respond to him in care, not with contention. He goes on to say about these matters of "dispute" that each is responsible to God for his own conscience. We must not pretend that out brethren are answerable to us, or that we have been put in a position of authority over them. Even as an elder, I must understand that God has appointed me a "shepherd," not a judge. Those with whom I deal are not answerable to me, but to God, the same as I.

How would this change the church if we were to adopt this attitude? I'll examine those thoughts next.