The Theological Ruminator
What should be the response to the "rules-driven" Christian who is not tempted by your liberty but is offended by it? I'm not so concerned about the one who might actually stumble; I just refrain. None of that stuff is that important to me. But do I hide the beer because John Mark gets mad when he sees it?
What I haven't figured out is whether he's mad that I have beer or mad that I didn't share 
R-Movies. There's an interesting story. While in Bible college, we were required to sign a conduct agreement. One of the rules is that we would not watch R-movies at any time during the semester or "breaks" (i.e., spring break). This included videos in the dorm, at home, or at the movie theater. Being the good little Christian heathens we were, we never followed this rule.
However, to keep from getting busted in the dorm and tagged with a $250 fine, we had to be creative. So, we set up the Nintendo 64, got the game started, paused it, locked the door, then flipped the video button on the VCR and proceeded to watch the movie. If anyone would knock, we'd say, "Just a minute." We'd hit the video button, unpause the game, and begin playing while the other went to the door. We never got caught.
We also had a "code word" for when anyone brought home an R movie to watch (close friends that is). People began to wonder why we watched "Mickey Blue Eyes" so much. Oddly, as much as we watch that movie in college, none of us had actually seen it until we got out of school.
Of course, there was also that guy who lived on the other wing. He walked in on his roommate watching an R-rated movie, asked him what he was watching, and then watched it with him. He felt guilty afterwards, so he ratted out himself... and his roommate. They didn't get a fine, but got in trouble. Then, a few weeks later, the guy walked in on his roommate watching another R-rated movie. He asked what it was, proceeded to watch it, then felt guilty. And yes, he ratted himself and his roommate out again. From then on, they were required to leave their dorm door open expect while sleeping or not in the room. Needless to say, he never got to watch Mickey Blue Eyes with us.
What's tricky is this passage is addressed to individual believers and not organizations like Chris' Bible College or my seminary.
As a result, rules such as R-rated movies and an alcohol policy that they set aren't really addressed here. They may be (and I think are) bad ideas, but they aren't actually disobeying this passage by setting such standards.
What passages ARE devoted to the Bible College or seminary?
I knew that. The comment just reminded me of my days in college, so I pseudo-hijacked your thread.
Well, your point pertains pretty well Chris. Though Roy has so aptly pointed out the relative absence of college/seminary passages in the Bible (I'm assuming that your friend, Dean, wouldn't go to one because of this, Chris!) it's still good to think about how institutions should handle such passages. While it's not speaking directly to them, certainly the spirit of the passage does in some way.
Where does a seminary draw the line at defining what a "moral" lifestyle looks like for its students and where does it stop? While concrete prohibitions are tidy and sometimes helpful, life is generally complex enough that they often don't help.
For instance, I year or so ago I had developed a relationship with a couple that saw me as "Mr. Perfect Seminary Student." I had the feeling that he felt I was off in some other world he had no hope of being a part of. When I felt compeled to refuse the beer he offered me due to DTS's drinking policy I honestly believe I did more harm than good to our relationship and my testimony in his life.
John, Mark,
This is Dan's mom.
I know you posted this weeks ago and maybe you won't see this. (I'm just now figuring out how to get to other comments D & D's blog).
What about Christian leaders who for instance, smoke an occasional cigar? I know of one young man who went to a Christian college with the son of this pastor and he also smoked an occasional cigar. Because this was someone he respected in his walk with Jesus, this gave him justification that it was ok. (Not to mention that he had signed a contract at the school and was breaking those rules, as well as his parents) I see stumbling all around in this case. Yes, an occasional cigar may not have serious consequences for one person, but if the weaker brother sees that, tries it, becomes addicted (or even if he doesn't) that's a stumbling block, isn't it? How responsible are we to and for others? I think that maybe Christian leaders must be held to a higher standard because of weaker Christians looking up to them. How far does that circle of influence extend and where does one draw the line so it doesn't become legalistic? To the other extreme, what if I am offended if you do or don't weat a tie, for instance? Who am I to set that ridiculous standared? I'm not God and it's wrong and legalistic to force that on someone else with no biblical basis for it. But I'll bet there's someone out there that can find some scripture to base that on. Where do I draw the line?
MOM B
Thanks for the good thinking Mrs. Blosser. I'm glad you pointed me to it on Dan's site because I don't have software to help me check older posts.
You make the good point that this is a tricky area and that a leader in the church will probably have to act differently in certain areas simply by virtue of being a leader. I'm still putting this together, myself. But a couple things I think:
1) Being "offensive" is not the issue of the "weaker brother." Like you said, I'd imagine just about anything is offensive to someone.
2) The issue of the "weaker brother" is about doing something that is a non-moral issue (say enjoying a glass of wine with dinner) that would cause a fellow believer to do it even while they felt it was sinful.
3) The case of the young man smoking the cigar is actually different than #2 because at least as you stated it, this guy didn't feel he was sinning by smoking the cigar. So actually this passage does not apply in this case (at least directly).
4) But leaders do have to be careful about the message they communicate.
Cases like you bring up aren't easy. Especially when we're dealing with non-moral issues with addictive qualities. However, I think the biggest problem in these areas isn't as much Xian leaders being careless. I honestly think the problem is that we've failed to honestly discuss areas that make us Xian adults uncomfortable. Sex. Alcohol. Smoking. We tend to just condemn them and as a result I think we create unhealthy attitudes towards these areas.
Maybe the ultimate litmus test is: if Jesus were right beside me in flesh and blood would I be doing this particular activity? We all know in our heads that He's here with us all the time, but I know I'm not actively thinking of it 100% of the time.
That is definitely true in a lot of situations. Though sometimes I might feel fine doing something in principle(say, having a beer with Jesus?) but struggle with the circumstances (such as wondering if being with Jesus was a qualifying "exceptional circumstance" to DTS's no drinking policy).
I mean, I know that's just being silly, but sometimes on non-moral issues, if it was just Jesus and me, then I would have no problem with it. To use the silly example I just gave - I personally don't struggle with alcohol. I'm not an alcoholic, and I've never even been drunk. So for me personally I view alcohol as a non-moral issue. Adding Jesus to the picture doesn't bother me a bit.
But it's when I have to consider the impact my actions might have on other people that things get especially tricky.
Commenting by HaloScan
