WOUNDED PILGRIMS

[al Hartman]

 


...received this e-mail from our oldest daughter,
 and hoped you would appreciate it:
----------------------------------------------------

At an airport late one night,
        With long hours Before her flight,
She looked for a book in an airport shop,
        Bought a bag of cookies, and found a place to drop.

Engrossed in her book, she happened to see,
        That the man right beside her, as bold as could be,
Grabbed a cookie or two from the bag in between,
        Which she tried to ignore, just to not make a scene.

So she munched the cookies and watched the clock,
        As the ill-mannered thief diminished her stock.

She grew more irritated as the minutes ticked by,
        "If I wasn't so nice, I would blacken his eye."

With each cookie she took, he took one too,
        Then just one was left-- now what would he do?
 
With a smile on his face, and a nervous laugh,
        He took the last cookie and broke it in half.
He offered her one piece, as he ate the other,
        She snatched it from him while thinking ...ooh, brother!

This guy had some nerve and he was also rude,
        Why, he might have at least showed some gratitude!
She couldn't remember being so galled,
        And sighed with relief when her flight was called.

She gathered her luggage and went to the gate,
        Not once looking back at the thieving ingrate.
She boarded the plane and sank into her seat,
        Then she sought for her book, which was almost complete.
 
As she reached in her baggage, she gasped with surprise,
        For there were her cookies, in front of her eyes.
If this is my bag, she moaned in despair,
        The others were his-- he was trying to share.

Too late to ask pardon, she saw clearly with grief,
        That she was the rude one, the ingrate, the thief!

----------------------------------------------------------------

How many times have we absolutely known that
something was a certain way, only to discover later that
what we believed to be true...  was not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Our daughter didn't state her reason for sending me this,
but it struck a chord.
 
Thank God that for the Christian it is never too late to ask pardon...
 
With love because of Christ,
al
 
 

[Mark C.]

Thanks Marcia,

  It sounds like a good seminar for former Assembly folks.

 Hi Al,

     Your post provides a most important lesson: we sometimes make judgments based on "the truth" only to discover that we can be wrong.  This should provide for some humility in our relationships vs. instanst crass judgments.

  To all:

 I am going to attempt a series on "The Weak and the Strong, a study in boundaries in Christian relationships.

    This will touch on my views re. NT instruction on this topic and hopefully help us as we try to "wash one another's feet" here on the BB and elsewhere.

  I think the Bible is clear in giving us direction as to what is overbearing vs. cowardly (or what is unwarranted abusive control vs. fearful neglect of standing up for the truth with our brethren) in our call to "love one another."

  As former Assembly members we probably are more sensitive than most Christians re. what crosses the line from loving entreaty to shame based control.  However, we have noticed on the BB that there might be some differences of opinion as to what is loving and what isn't.

            CHRISTIAN RELATIONSHIPS IN THE NT

   In Rom. 14-15 Paul talks about two different kinds of individuals in the church:  The "weak" and the "strong":  Who were these in the church of Rome and how can we identify them today?

1.)  Rom. 14 begins by describing "the weak" as being one who is "weak in the faith."  This "weakness" has to do with conscience: in other words, they mistakenly think that God has required them to do certain things that He does not require of them.

2.) "The strong", on the other hand, had better knowledge of God's requirement:   In other words, they were right.  This strength of knowledge was a positive, but could be used in a way that damaged, rather than helped other Christians.

   The wrong use of truth is the central theme of these two chapters, and primarily is directed at "the strong." 

   These verses can be forced into saying what they do not intend, and it will take a balanced understanding of the NT to avoid coming up with Assembly type views such as, "I cannot accept what you have to say because you don't present it in the proper way," as an attempt to avoid entreaty.

  It is obvious, however, that Paul does not want certain members "controlling" other members in this church via the force of their "black and white" judgments.  The reason for this is that such blunt force can have a destructive force on the recipient.

  Now, there are areas that are "black and white," such as moral conduct and doctrinal orthodoxy, that we must stand firmly for, but we are to make a difference between this and "disputable matters."

   What are these "disputable matters"?
   

  Well, there are things that are not black and white, but fit into the gray middle where we can have different opinions.  "Disputable' means that the answer is not immediately clear to all parties.

   The problem with "the strong" here is that they wanted to force others to agree with their strongly held opinions by stating that those that didn't agree with them were being sinful.  Paul believed that this was an abusive use of control over members he called "the weak".

  The weakened conscience is one that is much more sensitive to being overcome with guilt, not being fully secure in the knowledge of God's love for them. 

   It is finding a way to "buildup" that "weak conscience" that is the key, vs the  judgmental confrontational methods of the strong in Rom. 14 that we must learn if we are to be successful in ministering to others.

  There is much more to add to this discussion, but we will save it for later.  Feel free to make any comments.

                                                    God Bless,  Mark C.

   

[M2]

.....
   The problem with "the strong" here is that they wanted to force others to agree with their strongly held opinions by stating that those that didn't agree with them were being sinful.  Paul believed that this was an abusive use of control over members he called "the weak".

  The weakened conscience is one that is much more sensitive to being overcome with guilt, not being fully secure in the knowledge of God's love for them. 

   It is finding a way to "buildup" that "weak conscience" that is the key, vs the  judgmental confrontational methods of the strong in Rom. 14 that we must learn if we are to be successful in ministering to others.

  There is much more to add to this discussion, but we will save it for later.  Feel free to make any comments.

                                                    God Bless,  Mark C.

Hi Mark,

I look forward to your post on ministering to the weakened conscience.

Just an observation which came to mind when I read this post but applies across the board.
When I use IMO "just my opinion" and phrases like that, it is in actual fact to give the reader the freedom to make up their own mind on the matter, BTW that applies to all my comments, and I cannot control anyone anyway.
When I read some other posters use "just my opinion"  I feel like the emphasis is on the "my".  IOW it has a control on me and forbids me from expressing a contrary opinion because the poster is viewed as a weak one and a contrary opinion would not be supportive.  In actual fact the weak one ends up doing the controlling.  Therefore,  your assessment that the strong one is controlling may be inaccurate.

Marcia

[editor]

Hi Mark,

I look forward to your post on ministering to the weakened conscience.

Just an observation which came to mind when I read this post but applies across the board.
When I use IMO "just my opinion" and phrases like that, it is in actual fact to give the reader the freedom to make up their own mind on the matter, BTW that applies to all my comments, and I cannot control anyone anyway.
When I read some other posters use "just my opinion"  I feel like the emphasis is on the "my".  IOW it has a control on me and forbids me from expressing a contrary opinion because the poster is viewed as a weak one and a contrary opinion would not be supportive.  In actual fact the weak one ends up doing the controlling.  Therefore,  your assessment that the strong one is controlling may be inaccurate.

Marcia

Mark, using the verses in Romans, could you please explain who you see to be the weak and the strong?

When I read it, the "weak" are the ones who dictate to everyone, not the "strong."  Can you please clarify who is who?

Brent

[Recovering Saint]

The weakened conscience is one that is much more sensitive to being overcome with guilt, not being fully secure in the knowledge of God's love for them.

 It is finding a way to "buildup" that "weak conscience" that is the key, vs the judgmental confrontational methods of the strong in Rom. 14 that we must learn if we are to be successful in ministering to others.

Mark I agree the conscience is what is weak and in general the object is to build up the conscience. If however the individual has never seen a need to repent but merely accepted that they were a Christian by praying the sinners prayer you will not achieve the desired results. They are not energized by the Holy Spirit but are still in guilt mode and working their own salvation out with Christian Gospel trimmings. They are false converts and find the life of Christ too difficult to master  and want a "buy" from those in the know to lay off and give them breathing space. That of course means the strong are left beat down and wonder when do I exhort bad behaviour anyway and how do we treat these special people anyway? Will they ever understand the parable of the vinedresser? He eventually stops doesn't He? What is the point in continuing to do the weeding and watering and adding fertilizer? He says no fruit it is useless.

So yes they need help but the help is to see who Jesus is and to beliieve He loves them for who they are but does not want them to continue in sin. His grace is to help them to learn to believe that they can repent by God's grace and in order to mature they must repent. If they are allowed to go without repenting they may never be truly saved or be completely converted to become the mature man or woman in Christ they could be and should be.

The strong are not wrong to encourage a change as long as it isn't to force the weak to change into what they expect from themselves. The goal is "till we all come to the fullness and the stature of Christ".

If the weak are allowed to say you can't tell me I am wrong then there is a reverse of roles and the weak have now become abusive to the strong.

Hugh

[editor]

Mark I agree the conscience is what is weak and in general the object is to build up the conscience. If however the individual has never seen a need to repent but merely accepted that they were a Christian by praying the sinners prayer you will not achieve the desired results. They are not energized by the Holy Spirit but are still in guilt mode and working their own salvation out with Christian Gospel trimmings. They are false converts and find the life of Christ too difficult to master  and want a "buy" from those in the know to lay off and give them breathing space. That of course means the strong are left beat down and wonder when do I exhort bad behaviour anyway and how do we treat these special people anyway? Will they ever understand the parable of the vinedresser? He eventually stops doesn't He? What is the point in continuing to do the weeding and watering and adding fertilizer? He says no fruit it is useless.

So yes they need help but the help is to see who Jesus is and to beliieve He loves them for who they are but does not want them to continue in sin. His grace is to help them to learn to believe that they can repent by God's grace and in order to mature they must repent. If they are allowed to go without repenting they may never be truly saved or be completely converted to become the mature man or woman in Christ they could be and should be.

The strong are not wrong to encourage a change as long as it isn't to force the weak to change into what they expect from themselves. The goal is "till we all come to the fullness and the stature of Christ".

If the weak are allowed to say you can't tell me I am wrong then there is a reverse of roles and the weak have now become abusive to the strong.

Hugh

Hugh,

You've got it. 

In Roman's, the "weak" were judging those who didn't keep their laws and rules.  Interestingly, Paul exhorts both the weak and the strong....in a strong, straightforward manner!  He doesn't coddle the "weak," at all.  Rather, IMO he has stronger words for them.   He treats them as brethren, not as substandard, extra-special children.

Brent

[Mark C.]

[quote
Hugh,

You've got it. 

In Roman's, the "weak" were judging those who didn't keep their laws and rules.  Interestingly, Paul exhorts both the weak and the strong....in a strong, straightforward manner!  He doesn't coddle the "weak," at all.  Rather, IMO he has stronger words for them.   He treats them as brethren, not as substandard, extra-special children.

Brent

  Hi Everyone, and thanks for your challenges.

  Brent:  Where does Paul in Rm 14 and 15 "just as strongly exhort the weak as the strong?" 

   Marcia and Hugh:  I also cannot find any reference to an exhortation by Paul to the "weak' re. not using their victim status as a means to control the strong in these two chapters of Romans.  I agree it would be wrong to do this, but cannot find a reference warning the weak against doing so. 

  I think you have read into the text a meaning from this passage that is not there. 

  All three of your responses seem to fear that "the weak" are going to get away with something, and this was what the strong in this passage also feared.

  I think the key is the phrase, "disputable matters", as this calls for the ability to know what situation would make a difference, vs. what only makes for a crossing of a personal boundary by the exhorter.

  After all, Paul makes the point that these individuals we would like to set straight answer to the Lord himself, and not to us---"he is able to make them stand."  Hence Paul's directive, "leave them alone!"  Clearly the passage is meant to correct "the strong" and does not "equally" direct criticism toward "the weak."

  Hugh is correct, that issues of sinful attitudes and behaviors are to be condemned, but even in this area we are to "make a difference" in how we approach a person.  In Gal. 6 Paul warns those who seek to help those who have been "overtaken in a fault", to do so with graciousness and humility.  When Paul addresses unrepentant false teachers he is very harsh indeed.

  "The weak", in these chapters, is a saved individual (so that is not the issue here Hugh) whose "conscience is weak."  This means they believe that certain practices (keeping of holy days, religious diet, Sabbath keeping, etc.) are necessary to maintain a proper standing with God.

  "The Strong["/u] are those who want to "straighten out" their misinformed brethren based on their better knowledge of the liberty we have in Christ.

    I obviously can't make the leap from this passage and classify certain BB members as fitting either of these categories, because there is not direct application.  I do think there are some general principles that we can derive from this study and I hope that further explanation will help show this.  I will leave it to the readers to decide if any of what I write fits their situation.

  Paul does leave us with some guidelines that will apply to us.

 1.) The weak are not confident in their faith; they doubt what God wants them to do in some areas.

   We should understand this, because it is a very common condition of those who have formerly been in cults/fringe churches.  They are not necessarily in doubt re. theology, but in how they should now live as Christians.  Some of these would consider it a sin to omit their AM times, or to attend a church that had a paid pastor.

   We now know better (this makes us strong), but Paul is urging us to help those in such a condition over this rough spot, without condemning them in the process.  This requires empathy and basic human kindness.  In other words, we don't demean the individuals, (I will get more into this later.)

2.) Each individual believer has a personal boundary between his brethren that should not be crossed.     

   Paul makes the point repeatedly in this passage, "Accept the weak one, don't look down on them, don't condemn them, don't judge him, etc. because "we all will stand before the judgment seat of Christ" and this is our Lord's place not ours.

   Paul tells us in another place to, "not judge the motives of another" because this is a private matter between the Lord and "his servant" and "He is able to make them to stand."

  3.)"Let us make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification."

   Paul goes on to teach that we must make "every effort" to pursue peace, and this means to have patience with the failings of my brethren.  This comes from an understanding that God knows how to bring his own children along.   He is the God of hope, and this hope is in God's ability to correct the character flaws of his children.

   Peter asked, "how many times must I forgive my brother?"  This is a good question, because isn't it true if I just keep forgiving my brother when he sins against me I could be reinforcing his sinful tendency and being used by him in the process?  Jesus answered with the infinite number.

  Jesus did not teach Ayn Rand rugged individualism that won't tolerate those of weak will around them.  What he did teach, as well as the Apostles, was to understand that a believer can be truly saved, but can have issues with weak character.

   This can have to do with upbringing, toxic religion, bad choices, addictive habits, or a combination of many such things.  The person is truly saved, but struggles more than maybe another believer might in the same area.  They know it is sin, and they don't want to continue in it, and I think this describes "the weak" vs the individual who is trying to "use us" by claiming they are "special."

  Only God really knows what is going on in the heart of such a "weak" one and what their true situation is--- we just can't see into their hearts and make a determination as to their true inner state: con-artist or truly needy.

  This is getting too long, and so I will await your comments and either continue my series or take it as it comes.  This is a wonderful topic and I hope very helpful.
                                       God Bless,  Mark C.   

 

 

[editor]

Hi Mark,

You have it backwards.  I wasn't sure, until you made it clear in your last post.  Let's quote the passage, instead of talking about it/

14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.1 14:2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 14:3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on another's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord2 is able to make him stand.

14:5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike.3 Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. 14:6 The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The4 one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. 14:7 For none of us lives for himself and none dies for himself. 14:8 If we live, we live for the Lord; if we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 14:9 For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he may be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

14:10 But you who eat vegetables only--why do you judge your brother or sister?5 And you who eat everything--why do you despise your brother or sister?6 For we will all stand before the judgment seat7 of God. 14:11 For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God."8 14:12 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.9


14:13 Therefore we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister.10 14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. 14:15 For if your brother or sister11 is distressed because of what you eat,12 you are no longer walking in love.13 Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died. 14:16 Therefore do not let what you consider good14 be spoken of as evil. 14:17 For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. 14:18 For the one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by people.15

14:19 So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another. 14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean,16 it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. 14:21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble.17 14:22 The faith18 you have, keep to yourself before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. 14:23 But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.19


In verses 1 to 4, we are introduced to the weak, who are afraid to eat certain things...and the strong, who know they can eat anything.  They have liberty in Christ.

The strong are reminded not to despise the weak.  The weak are admonished not to judge the strong.  Both are exhorted, equally.

I don't how you can see it otherwise.  The strong have the tendency to despise the weak, but the weak sit in judgement of the strong.  Paul corrects them both...but I repeat myself.  Certainly I am reading nothing into the passage that isn't there.  Clearly, Paul is making the point that the weak tend to sit in judgement of the strong.  They use their weak faith, and bad consciences to condemn their brethren.  When these people are catered to, things get pretty bad.

The same holds for letting the strong get out of balance, but we are talking about the weak here.

Your statement

After all, Paul makes the point that these individuals we would like to set straight answer to the Lord himself, and not to us---"he is able to make them stand."  Hence Paul's directive, "leave them alone!"  Clearly the passage is meant to correct "the strong" and does not "equally" direct criticism toward "the weak."

is just flat out wrong.  If you look at the verb's you will clearly see that a strong case could be made that the "weak" are getting more of a dressing down than the strong.  The weak are the ones who judge, and Paul tells them,  "who are you to pass judegement?"

Also, Galatians tells us what can happen when legalism, of the type advocated by the weak, becomes the order of the day.

When you say that Paul repeatedly reminds us not to judge to weak, you are also mistaken.  He reminds the weak not to judge the strong, and the strong not to despise the weak.  But I repeat myself.

Mark, if you were to follow your own advice, you would lovingly tolerate legalsim, if the person was weak.  You misunderstand the passage.  Re-read it and see if what I am saying is not so. 

Paul ends the passage by saying:

15:1 But we who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not just please ourselves.1 15:2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good to build him up.

Get this, Paul identifies himself with the strong.  Furthemore, he says that the strong should help build up the weak.  There are many ways to do that, and not all of them involve quilts and warm milk.  If the weak are like the weak in Galatia, rebuke is in order.  Tenderness and mercy are also needed, but not always and in every situation. 

Nevertheless, the idea is that the weak grow and become strong.  We have liberty in Christ.

So, Mark, when you said,

Marcia and Hugh:  I also cannot find any reference to an exhortation by Paul to the "weak' re. not using their victim status as a means to control the strong in these two chapters of Romans.  I agree it would be wrong to do this, but cannot find a reference warning the weak against doing so. 

You are wrong.  The whole chapter is taken up with just this very thing.  When Paul tells the weak to not judge their brothe or sister, he is exhorting the weak to not use their weakness as a means to control the strong.  But I repeat myself.

I think you're looking at this all wrong, and I'd be happy to go into it further, but I'll let you read and respond to this first.

Brent

[vernecarty]

The current focus on Biblical exegesis is a good thing.
I hope it continues for it keeps the standard high, and the hogwash low...
Theere is no quicker way to discern exactly where a person is at than by having them explain to you what they think the Word of God is saying. It is a beautiful mirror in that sense in that it reflects a true image!
Carry on men!( and ladies)
Verne

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.   Hebrews 4:12

[Recovering Saint]

 Marcia and Hugh: I also cannot find any reference to an exhortation by Paul to the "weak' re. not using their victim status as a means to control the strong in these two chapters of Romans. I agree it would be wrong to do this, but cannot find a reference warning the weak against doing so.

 I think you have read into the text a meaning from this passage that is not there.

 All three of your responses seem to fear that "the weak" are going to get away with something, and this was what the strong in this passage also feared.

 I think the key is the phrase, "disputable matters", as this calls for the ability to know what situation would make a difference, vs. what only makes for a crossing of a personal boundary by the exhorter.

 After all, Paul makes the point that these individuals we would like to set straight answer to the Lord himself, and not to us---"he is able to make them stand." Hence Paul's directive, "leave them alone!" Clearly the passage is meant to correct "the strong" and does not "equally" direct criticism toward "the weak."

 Hugh is correct, that issues of sinful attitudes and behaviors are to be condemned, but even in this area we are to "make a difference" in how we approach a person. In Gal. 6 Paul warns those who seek to help those who have been "overtaken in a fault", to do so with graciousness and humility. When Paul addresses unrepentant false teachers he is very harsh indeed.

 "The weak", in these chapters, is a saved individual (so that is not the issue here Hugh) whose "conscience is weak." This means they believe that certain practices (keeping of holy days, religious diet, Sabbath keeping, etc.) are necessary to maintain a proper standing with God.

Mark

ROM 14:3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on another's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord2 is able to make him stand.


It is the weak who judge the stong and therefore wish to control the strong. Paul says Who are you to pass judgement on another's servant? In this passage it is the weak not the strong who are passing judgement because the weak have a feeling that they are more spiritual than the strong.

Agreed as previously stated there is abuse from the Strong but that is not my point here.

Agreed as well Romans is written to Christians Mark so they are saved.

Lord bless
Hugh

[editor]

The current focus on Biblical exegesis is a good thing.
I hope it continues for it keeps the standard high, and the hogwash low...
Theere is no quicker way to discern exactly where a person is at than by having them explain to you what they think the Word of God is saying. It is a beautiful mirror in that sense in that it reflects a true image!
Carry on men!( and ladies)
Verne

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.   Hebrews 4:12

Good point Verne,

I'm going to get back in to the practice of quoting and explaining scripture to back up what I am saying.  I agree, it keeps the standard high.

Brent

[M2]

Mark,

I do not want to sidetrack here because it looks like the discussionis headed in a profitable direction.  This is just a comment in response to you.

In actual fact, I was not relating to any individual based on weakness or strongness.  When the person needed encouragement I offered it.  When the person needed advise to respond to Brent's POV I offered it.  When the person presented false teaching I expressed my disagreement.  The same person, by your definiton, is both weak and strong.  I did not judge the motives of the other, and I was not concerned that the person was going to get away with something.  It was all a matter of discussing a topic of interest and agreeing or disagreeing with various ones.

At one point, here in Ottawa we used to set up 2 VBall courts so that the good players could have a good game (and understanderbly so) and the not-so-good players could also play but without spoiling the game for the good players.  But after a while it got tiresome to set up 2 courts.   I was one of the terrible players and I never entered a game, on my own initiative, with good players because I did not want to spoil the game for them.  It would annoy me to see a terrible player insist on playing just because she wanted to and thus spoil a good game, and the others including myself, just tolerated it.  This is just a matter of plain courtesy and common sense IMO.  The weak one was extra-special that people just tolerated them.  I could not muster up any other 'Christian' kind of feeling for a person who IMO was being inconsiderate.

I can tolerate quite a bit actually, but I cannot resort to flattery just to be tolerant of so-called weak ones.

Marcia

[editor]

Mark,

I do not want to sidetrack here because it looks like the discussionis headed in a profitable direction.  This is just a comment in response to you.

In actual fact, I was not relating to any individual based on weakness or strongness.  When the person needed encouragement I offered it.  When the person needed advise to respond to Brent's POV I offered it.  When the person presented false teaching I expressed my disagreement.  The same person, by your definiton, is both weak and strong.  I did not judge the motives of the other, and I was not concerned that the person was going to get away with something.  It was all a matter of discussing a topic of interest and agreeing or disagreeing with various ones.

At one point, here in Ottawa we used to set up 2 VBall courts so that the good players could have a good game (and understanderbly so) and the not-so-good players could also play but without spoiling the game for the good players.  But after a while it got tiresome to set up 2 courts.   I was one of the terrible players and I never entered a game, on my own initiative, with good players because I did not want to spoil the game for them.  It would annoy me to see a terrible player insist on playing just because she wanted to and thus spoil a good game, and the others including myself, just tolerated it.  This is just a matter of plain courtesy and common sense IMO.  The weak one was extra-special that people just tolerated them.  I could not muster up any other 'Christian' kind of feeling for a person who IMO was being inconsiderate.

I call tolerate quite a bit actually, but I cannot resort to flattery just to be tolerant of so-called weak ones.

Marcia

If the weak ones are to grow, and stand fast in liberty, they must first learn not to judge the strong.  This implies many things, but must include some sort of correction, whether gentle or firm matters not, if it is received.

The strong must learn to "bear" with the weak.  That isn't easy, but the strong are called to do it.  Of course, the weak will use this against the strong...."You're not bearing with me!  You're not Christlike!"

At some point, when the weak needy person has grown into a tyrant, something must be done.

That's where we are in society today.  Needy, lazy, weak, immoral people are given extra-special rights and privileges by virtue of being pathetic.

If God kept this standard, he would have rewarded the one who buried his talents by taking from the one who doubled his. The fact is, He did just the opposite, and in doing so defied every principle of "luv and Kompassion" that has been foisted on us in the name of who knows what.  I reject the modern ideas of "luv and Kompassion," whether they come from the church of the world.

Much more to say on this, but one step at a time.  The main point I'm trying to make, which fits into a bigger, much bigger picture, is:

Laziness, slothfullness, immorality, neediness (brought on by choice) is NOT a virtue, but rather a vice.  If we turn this around, and begin to reward need, and punish diligence, we are calling good evil, and evil good.


Brent

[Mark C.]

Hi Everyone!

  Yes indeed, I heartily agree and enjoy a Biblical approach.

Brent and Hugh:  I guess I must be a dullard here, because I just don't see any exhortations directed toward the "weak" in Rom. 14-15.  It is not "clear" to me at all that this passage is equally exhorting both parties--- After reading it many times I'm not seeing it.  Also, after reading commentaries I find no scholarship that supports your views on these chapters.  I will quote one such scholar below.  

  Brent:  You make some very good points when you bring in Galatians, and I said before the 2 Romans chapters are not the final word on the subject of the weak and the strong.  Paul does include himself as one that is "strong", and so that in itself is a good thing (as I mentioned before) but his exhortations have to do with how the strong behave in relationship to the weak.    

The    issue is not surrendering correct thinking re. legalism, but developing a sensitivity to those who don't get it yet, i.e. the weak.

    But even in Galatians, the foolish weak Galatians, who were indeed corrected by Paul, he does make some crucial differences in how we are to handle certain individuals.  To the obstinate defenders of legalism (especially the teachers of this), he launches a full assault, to those deceived (or taken in a fault) he advocates a helping hand up.

   Gal. 6:1-- Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.

    The word "gently" is translated "meekness" in the KJV.  The Greek word is, "praotes" which is difficult to translate into English.  In our relationships with others meekness is "the opposite of self- assertiveness and self-interest.  It is most especially used outwardly in connection with our relationship to the ignorant and erring" (WE Vine).

  I think the operative word for our discussion re. the BB is the above phrase "self-assertiveness."  The "strong" were more interested in advancing their argument than trying to help the ignorant and erring (the weak).  Paul wanted strong Christians to learn how to use their power under the control of a loving sensitivity to those who were having trouble maturing in their Christian lives.

  He recognized that the church was not filled with equals, but with novices, old folks, feeble minded, children, mature take charge adults, dysfunctional adults, those taken in a fault, deceived, weak in the faith, etc.  

  Also, there were wolves around who were not Christians at all, and for these a completely different attitude was to be chosen.

  We have experienced those who come to the BB in a effort to master others via their skills of debate.  I believe Paul is saying that this demonstrates a motive of "self-interest" and hence is not "gentle" (meek).

  "Paul's counsel was clear.  The more liberally minded should not take advantage of their position (both their majority numbers and their so far less exposed position as non-Jews).  They should not exploit their own own readiness to discuss their differences as a way of making the more inhibited newer members feel inferior.  They should not pressure them to accept the will of the majority and conform to the dominant ethos.------ Thus is the tone set for the major thrust of Paul's guidance to those who regarded themselves as "strong in faith."       James Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary.

  Now of course, "weak in the faith" could be taken as a pejorative statement all by itself, and it is not the same as "weak in the flesh", but there are places where Paul and Jesus declare "weakness" as a positive thing in our lives: "strength out of weakness, the weak more necessary, etc."

   The point is we cannot form into two camps in the church where we develop a partisan spirit and instead must learn to "live in peace together" without feeling we need to get tough with those who refuse to come under the control of our argument.  

   There are places to "get tough" and confrontational, but this will not always be the case.  To have a one-size-fits-all Dr. Laura styled counselling method we will only have one tool in our minstering tool box--- a large hammer!

  Aside from all the biblical discussion on this matter it must be obvious (as Sondra as shown) that people are more receptive to our direction when they like us.  Folks like us when they understand that we are not trying to shame, ridicule, control, or otherwise run them down.

 If we can bring a corrective thought to someone and don't make them feel defensive there is hope that we can help them.  This is not hypocritcal weakness, but simply a recognition of what works and what does not.
 
  We can become "highly principled" extremists when we refuse to moderate (another sense of the word "gently") the defense of our stronly held opinions.  We despise those who are not as "strong" in their principles as us; those given to compromise--- we see this as a weakness.  It could be weakness in the counsellor, or it could just be a loving consideration to acknowledge that people have feelings that can be hurt.

   Does this sound familiar?  The "one true church" is made up of all kinds of just regular ol' folks with lots of problems, and if we are honest we will admit we have a few ourselves.  .  The Assembly totally discounted the fact that we were human as well as "saints."

                                                                   God Bless,  Mark C.

                                                          

                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

[editor]

Hi Everyone!

  Yes indeed, I heartily agree and enjoy a Biblical approach.

Brent and Hugh:  I guess I must be a dullard here, because I just don't see any exhortations directed toward the "weak" in Rom. 14-15.  It is not "clear" to me at all that this passage is equally exhorting both parties--- After reading it many times I'm not seeing it.  Also, after reading commentaries I find no scholarship that supports your views on these chapters.  I will quote one such scholar below.  

  Brent:  You make some very good points when you bring in Galatians, and I said before the 2 Romans chapters are not the final word on the subject of the weak and the strong.  Paul does include himself as one that is "strong", and so that in itself is a good thing (as I mentioned before) but his exhortations have to do with how the strong behave in relationship to the weak.    

I have some commentary somewhere that says what i am saying, but I really don't think any commentary is needed.  I get my idea from this:

14:3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on another's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord2 is able to make him stand.


Step by step, the one who has liberty to eat everything is strong.

The one who abstains is weak.  I got that from verses 1 and 2. 

In verse three, if you study it carefully, and look up the Greek, it says,  "and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him." 

There it is, hidden in the Bible code, the weak must not judge the strong. 

Judging another is more serious than despising, although neither are good.  Paul implies that the weak, abstainers are judging that the one's who have liberty are not accepted by God.  In our current BB climate, they might be saying,  "That's not Christlike."  Or, in the Assembly we often heard,  "Brother, that's not a good testimony." 

So, if we add 2 + 2 we get and exhortation to the weak, legalistic, judgemental believers that abstain from eating cerain things due to being weak in the faith.  It's no big deal whether they eat or not, or whether they insist on worshipping on Saturday, or not.  Those are the disputable things.  It is a big deal if they judge those who are more mature, who have liberty in Christ.

I'm not sure who your commentator is, but a semi-careful reading of the passage bears out what I am saying.  Also, it lines up with the ideas seen elsewhere in scripture.  The legalist, who judges others, is NOT strong in the faith.  Neither is the scardy-cat who can't
touch taste or handle for fear of being stumbled.  Those who would project those values on to others are the target in the admonishment to the weak.

Brent