I came across an interesting post that raises a good question. Is it really okay to modify your actions based on the weaker consciences of some?
Here’s the post:
In 1857 a few white members of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa asked permission to celebrate the Lord’s Supper separately from their black brothers and sisters. The General Assembly believed their request was wrong, but it acquiesced “due to the weakness of some.” This concession soon became the norm, as white Christians increasingly chose to observe the Lord’s Supper without their black siblings. Their racism prompted the unwanted black Christians to leave and start their own churches. And so the South African church, divided by race, eventually became a vocal supporter of apartheid. In 1924 the DRC argued that the races must remain separate, for “competition between black and white on economic levels…leads to poverty, friction, misunderstanding, suspicion, and bitterness.”
How might the history of South Africa be different if the church had not conceded to the sinful request of a few “weaker brothers”? We are thankful for leaders such as Nelson Mandela who gave their lives to end apartheid. But it’s a shame on the church that their sacrifice was even needed.
Peter gave in to the “weaker brothers” in Antioch. He knew they were wrong to insist that Gentiles live like Jews, but afraid of what they might say, he refused to eat with Gentiles when these Judaizers came to town. Paul recognized this was a big deal, for the reason these Jews split from the Gentiles put the gospel at risk. How would the history of Christianity be different if Paul had not stood up to Peter’s shameful concession?
It’s never right to do wrong because others think it’s right. We must not violate our conscience on the flimsy ground that “They wouldn’t understand,” “It’s what they expect,” or “Just this once, what will it hurt?” It may seem easier to give in, but our concession will make life harder down the road.
–Read the original post from Mike Wittmer
I think you can definitely get in trouble if you’re always giving in to “weaker brothers”. It’s one thing to aim not to offend, it’s quite another to live your life with the weaker brother always potentially popping up at every turn.
What do you think? Is Mike Witmer way off base here? Am I?
“It’s never right to do wrong because others think it’s right.”
I can’t imagine disagreeing with that, but I don’t know what you mean as long as the discussion remains abstract.
What parallel(s) do you see between our current cultural climate (or Christian subcultural climate) and the 1857 South African climate?
Hey Bob, Thanks for passing this post along. Great questions raised here. Without getting into the politics of apartheid I think we can make a clear pronouncement here. The “weaker” brother as defined in this instance is “weak” because he can’t fellowship with another race?? This is clearly antithetical to every principle of Scriptural Unity and race blindness taught in passages like John 17, Gal. 3:28, Ephesians 2:14, etc. Even in the stronger brother, weaker brother passages of Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 we find no reference to putting aside the clear teachings of Scripture in order to avoid offense to a weaker brother’s conscience.
“Matters of conscience” or “weaker brother” preferences as defined in these passages do not militate against foundational Christian principles taught and displayed by our Lord. As our brother correctly points out – Paul withstood Peter to his face – we should do no less when the heart of God for all the nations is so despicably abused in the name of “conscience”. I’m with Mr. Wittmer and you on this!
Keep up the great work!
Bob,
Hi, I’d just like to tag on to what Jim wrote above.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion with some of the YRR guys on this issue of the weaker brother. In fact, I’ve seen it quite a few times on The Resurgence and the Acts29 site. I find now that many of the young reformed guys just automatically link the “weaker brother” label to legalism/ Pharisees.
There are two great dangers here:
1 – Peter’s concession to the Jews in Antioch was not a matter of what Paul means when he speaks of the brother or sister with a weaker conscience. Matters of a weaker conscience fit into what is called “Adiaphora” and applies to are matters that are indifferent. To do or not do them is neither to sin or not sin. By confusing Peters’ and the Jews refusal to eat with Gentiles, this writer seems to be trying to portay the weaker brother as one who is sinning. That simply is not the case in Paul’s letters. There is a difference between respecting each other’s consciences on matters of Christian liberty and false teaching.
2- The second great danger that I see is dismissal of any issue that legitimately fits within the “weaker brother” category. While it may be true that there are legalists who wrongly impose a warning of “what about the weaker brother?” in order to make things stricter within their congregations, we must not forget that there actually ARE weaker brothers and sisters whose souls we have accountability over. There are guys and gals who have come out of alcholic backgrounds who cannot drink alcohol and pagan backgrounds where demonic activity was practiced and a whole host of other depraved backgrounds that some of the things in which we approve WILL cause them to stumble.
We must guard against exercising our freedoms to their peril.
And we must not label them or their allies legalists. Paul was pretty straight up clear about that, imo.
Thanks for letting me comment. Love your blog; thanks for your work.
Basically, I felt this was an interesting read and wanted to share. I agree, it is never right to do wrong just because others think it is right. In one sense this is what happened with the DRC, but in another sense, it wasn’t really “wrong” per se, it just was troubling to some to have to have communion with the blacks. So they gave in to those “weaker” in that sense, brothers.
I feel that more often this is similar to what happens in some circles today. People are troubled about doing something that seems wrong to them, so others refrain from exercising their liberty. This is not necessarily bad, as Deb pointed out. But living life always assuming that someone isn’t okay with this so we should refrain, can be debilitating and unhealthy in my view. It’s not that weaker brothers are necessarily sinful, but that in some situations, we should aim to teach them or not be put off by them.
But love is key. Love for others and not just a no-holds-barred approach that says “I’m going to do what I want to do, period.”
It is complicated because there are adiaphora issues, there are matters of some importance and there are weaker brothers. We should aim not to pronounce judgment on some, and instead need to welcome all (Rom. 14).
I’m probably not making much sense, but I thought thinking in somewhat concrete terms by using the examples has some merit for us. Things aren’t always black and white. And I’m not saying I agree 100% with Wittmer. Food for thought, and I appreciate the interaction.
I agree that we should not give in to things that are clearly stated in the Bible as wrong. Otherwise you end up being no different than the world while we are meant to be shining in the darkness. At the same time we need to be careful in understanding what exactly is right and what exactly is wrong. Choice of music/movies is the first example that comes to mind. Sometimes it is impossible to relate to and talk to someone who makes these things his primary hobby. Given that ministry is all about relationships, sometimes it is necessary to at least be exposed to the subject of interest for that person. I have listened to Japanese pop music and watched Japanesne dramas, partially out of my own interest, but mostly to understand the culture and be able to relate better with the people here. While exposing myself to these things, it is key for me to stay in God’s word and constant prayer so that I continue to remind myself what is the baseline of right/wrong.
This is an interesting post. It raises an interesting question, but also needs a warning. As a theology student who found myself caught up in the YRR movement, I desperately needed to remind myself that Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 are in the Bible…somehow younger Christians seems to err on the side of correction and reproval at times when it may not be totally warranted.
Arthur W. Pink touches on this issue in his book GLEANINGS IN PAUL. I quote:
“The aim should be to enlighten the mind rather that force his will, for unless the conscience be convicted, uniformity of action would be mere hypocrisy…
John Brown stated, “You give a false and degrading view of Christianity by these contentions, leading men to think that freedom from ceremonial restrictions is its great privilege, while the truth is, justification, peace with God, and joy in God, produced by the Holy Spirit, are the characteristic privileges of the children of the kingdom (Rom. 14:17)”…”
Pink stated that ‘drawing the line’, so to speak, was “not an easy question to answer” and remarked that “the one who sets out to try and please everybody is likely to end by pleasing nobody”. He suggest, however, that the secret depends on understanding the VIEWPOINT of the other side. I quote:
“There are some professing Christians (by no means all of them Romanists) who would consider they grievously dishonoured Christ if they partook of any animal meat on Friday. How far would the dictates of Christian love require me to join with them in such abstinence were I to reside in a community where these people preponderated? Answering for himself, the writer would say it depends upon their viewpoint. IF IT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A SENTIMENT HE WOULD PROBABLY YIELD, THOUGH HE WOULD ENDEAVOR TO SHOW THEM THERE WAS NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE REQUIRING SUCH ABSTINENCE. But if they regarded it as a virtuous thing, as being necessary to salvation, he would unhesitatingly disregard their wishes, otherwise he would be encouraging them in fatal error. Or, if they said he too was sinning by eating animal meat on Friday, then he would deem it an unwarrantable exercise of brotherly love to countenance their mistake, and an unlawful trespassing upon his Christian liberty.” (emphasis mine)
In my opinion, wise words. We would do well to take them to heart, lest we lose our balance, falling on either side, and sin against Christ.
Jonarron & Stephen,
I agree with your comments. This issue is cause for care and caution, not a glib formulaic approach on either side.