Principles for Disagreeing with other Christians on Conscience IssuesThese twelve principles originated in a book entitled Conscience by Andy Naselli and J. D. Crowley. In a previous thread (here), I used principles extracted from a book written by Tim Keller to address the most divisive issue among American Christians that I'm aware of, the Bible text and translation issue. In that thread we were more focused on accurately representing the theological positions of other believers (would they agree with my representation, etc...). Personally, I'm still certain no matter how accurate you try to be in representing others there is always a caveat or exception to a particular position (you probably even have an objection to my exception). Here we shall use Naselli and Crowley's principles to readdress this issue from a conscience perspective. These principles are extracted from Romans 14. A good overview of these principles is available online here.
My comments with each principle are areas of application I am trying to work out both theologically, practically, and an honest attempt to not be hypocritical in application. Again, my applications are entirely wrong if the text and translation issue does not belong in context of Rom 14 or even an overly-gentile understanding of the text may also be in error. Again, if certain positions on the text and translation issue are in theological or practical error, then it would not fit within the context of Romans 14. For a very thorough understanding of Romans 14, I recommend Mark Snoeberger's article, "Weakness or Wisdom? Fundamentalists and Romans 14.1-15.13" DBSJ 12 (2007): 29-49.
My applications for this post will be listed as sub-points A. B. C. etc.... Please note I am trying to personalize them with the first person pronoun "I" while the Bold points are produced by Naselli and Crowley. Here are the twelve points (pp. 96-115):
1. Welcome those who disagree with you (Rom 14:1-2).
A. I am to be personally kind and gracious to every believer regardless of their position on the text and translation issue, I'm afraid I struggle with this more than I want (too much John Owen I think).
B. As much as it depends on me, I am to live at peace with everyone who holds to a different position on the text and translation issue. I may not be able to attend their church, definitely not membership, but I'll try to live at peace (just by way a reminder, this still implies they are holding to a historically orthodox position).
C. At what point, theologically or practically, am I welcoming those with a different position on the text and translation issue an endorsement of erroneous teaching or practice? Let's flesh this out a bit with some illustrations (some of these should be easy to answer but I'm typing or "thinking" out loud):
a. If I am a guest preacher at a local church should I be required to adhere to their public policy for preaching? If so for how long? Would addressing a wrong position be considered divisive? What false beliefs and practices might they have that are too taboo to speak against? Texts? Which ones?
b. If I am sitting in the pew during a worship serve, and not preaching or teaching, should I still carry with me the same translation as the one being used in the pulpit? I've been through scores of churches and not done this and I had no following along. There was no confusion.
c. If I am joining a church, and the church's position is XYZ, must I agree with position XYZ? Similar issues to sub-points a. and b. above: preaching/teaching, sitting in the pew, etc.... Would it not be easier to simply attend a church that agrees with a certain position? Here's a thought: Is it wrong or even sinful to impose an English translation position on church members? I suggest listening to Mark Dever's sermon on the sinfulness of requirements like this before answering (I found it helpful).
2. Those who have freedom of conscience must not look down on those who don't (Rom 14:3-4).
A. I am not to look down on those who who hold to a different position on the text and translation issue.
B. So let's expand on the scenario from Rom 14. Using the text, the advocate who can only use or will only use one English translation is in which category: strong or weak? The strong have liberty to use any English translation. The weak feel compelled by theology, culture, family, traditions, familiarity or a potential host of other issues to only use one English translation: the King James Version.
C. Again, I'm not quite sure this issue belongs here but for sake of exegetical consistency, which side of the argument does Paul come down on? Was he weak or strong? Rom 15:1 states, "We who are strong..." Seems as though both here and as his consistent practice he falls down on the strong side. I know these because he freely quotes from both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. Also he does not slavishly follow either one verbatim.
3. Those whose conscience restricts them must not be judgmental toward those who have freedom (Rom 14:3-4).
A. I am not to be judgmental toward those who have even more liberty than myself on the text and translation issue.
B. At what point do I begin to struggle with point A, users of the NASB, ESV, NIV, tNIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT? At what point based on my current understanding of the academic facts on this issue do I personally feel a person, church, or denomination has gone too far? When does theological or practical compromise begin?
C. Am I willing to acknowledge that simply because I personally may not be able to use a certain translation does not mean others will share my concerns?
4. Each believer must be fully convinced of their position in their own conscience (Rom 14:5).
A. Am I fully convinced theologically and historically on the text and translation issue?
B. Am I fully convinced that my position is the historical position on the text and translation issue?
C. Am I academically willing to admit I may be wrong on the text and translation position?
D. Am I willing to admit that the historical position on the text and translation issue might be wrong--basically meaning the vast majority of historical Christianity is wrong on this issue?
E. What do we do when church members are not given the opportunity to be fully convinced or to have consciences that are truly informed on the text and translation issue and can function in a healthy manner?
5. Assume that others are partaking or refraining for the glory of God (Rom 14:6-9).
A. Am I using or not using a particular English translation for the glory of God?
B. Am I reading or not reading my Greek New Testament for the glory of God?
C. I must assume that those holding to a different position on the text and translation issue are doing so to the glory of God. I must admit it is hard to grasp how some can hold to false historical position on this issue, refuse to be teachable, and yet still do this to the glory of God.
D. Do I believe every translation in any language can be used to the glory of God? Or do I believe that only English can be used for God's glory? Oh what should we do for world missions?
E. If I can't say "yes" to letter D. above then which of the four principles above am I struggling with? Not welcoming? Judgmental? Looking down? Not fully convinced?
F. Have I crafted my own standards for what makes a good translation, then using my own standards for determining what translation I can use for God's glory (translations philosophy, grammar, vocabulary, etc...)?
6. Do not judge each other in these matters because we will all someday stand before the judgment seat of God (Rom 14:10-12).
A. Am I judging (looking down on) others for their views on the text and translation issue?
B. Do I realize I will stand before God alone concerning my own position on the text and translation committee?
C. Do I realize every member of our congregations will stand alone concerning their views on this issue?
D. Since I will alone answer for my position on this issue, can I justly or honestly impose my standard on other members in a local church?
E. I pray God's church is not try to bind the conscience of unsuspecting believers with their own personal views on this issue.
F. People in our pews should have liberty to read their own Bibles without persecution (a Bible they can understand).
Well this has gone rather long and there are twelve principles. I guess that means I'll need another post to complete all twelve of these principles. in the end, read your Bible and see all the God asks of us. See how he has revealed his mind to us on the pages of scriptures. At a minimum, God desires that all repent and come to a saving knowledge of the truth. He has made a relationship with him possible, through the sacrificial death of his son, to pay the pentalty our sins deserve.
Read your Bible. Comment as needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment