When Christians Disagree
"Is it . . . infallibly agreeable
to the Word of God, all that you say? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ,
think it possible you may be mistaken."
— Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)
These words from Oliver Cromwell
represent perhaps the greatest and most impassioned plea for religious
understanding that has ever been penned. The stately eloquence of his appeal
has ensured its preservation over the passage of time. Sadly, the need
for such a plea is as necessary now as it was in the days of Cromwell.
Even after all these centuries, religious intolerance in all its ugliness
is still present in our lives.
From the very beginning there
has been a recurring theme in much of the correspondence I have received
as editor of this newsletter. Because we are nudists, many of us live in
fear of judgment and recrimination from our brothers and sisters in Christ,
and from our church leadership as well. We often have a sense of foreboding
over what seems like inevitable but completely undeserved persecution because
of our lifestyle. This fear may limit our ability to maintain warm Christian
fellowship within our church families. Words can barely express the sadness
I feel that such a situation should exist in the church today. I've written
about this subject before, but two recent letters have brought it to the
forefront again.
I was saddened almost to
tears as I read of the fears that a Christian nudist expressed regarding
what he felt would happen to him if other Christians from his church and
surrounding community should ever discover that he and his family were
nudists. From what he tells me he has much to lose if this should happen,
and yet he continues to believe in the morality and goodness of nudism.
I was also saddened by a
letter from a Christian critic of nudism with whom I have had an ongoing
correspondence. Unfortunately, the closed-minded judgmentalism of this
person is so great that it has led her to end our exchange of letters because
I continue to support nudism. She has decided, for all intents and purposes,
to disfellowship me.
Christians often disagree.
Disagreeing with each other is not necessarily a bad thing. We can grow
intellectually and spiritually as a result of honest and loving
debate. "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another," says Proverbs
27.17 (NIV throughout unless otherwise noted). Unfortunately, we can also
hurt one another during the course of our disagreements if we aren't careful.
Sometimes being "right" becomes more important than being loving, and that's
a very bad thing, indeed.
When Christians disagree
with one another, I believe it's important that they are well versed in
what could be called Biblical rules of engagement. Paul lays down
some of these rules in Romans 14:
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14.1-5).
Romans 14 shows us that disagreements
between Christians are hardly a recent problem within the church. Here's
what The Layman's Bible Commentary has to say about this chapter
of Scripture:
Paul now comes to something which is a problem always and everywhere: moral questions about which sincere Christians differ. Just because Christian life cannot be managed with a brass rule, just because a slogan like "Love is the answer" or "Christ is the answer" does not untangle all problems, the Christian often has to think his problems through — only to find that other equally sincere Christians have thought the same problems through and have come up with quite different answers. Then what?
Then what, indeed! Actually,
this analysis may be a bit too charitable to some of the parties involved
in these disputes. Many of them have not thought the problem through at
all, but instead have based their position on uninformed presumption or
long-standing tradition. In addition, many people who become involved in
these disputes tend to be very closed-minded to any opinion other than
their own or that of their group. This complicates matters immensely when
trying to discuss our differences, since rational debate demands informed,
thoughtful debaters who are at least marginally open to new ideas.
I would venture to say that poor Biblical scholarship and obstinate closed-mindedness
are probably the two most difficult problems that we face when trying to
discuss nudism with other Christians.
Scripture refers to the kinds
of problems that Paul addresses in Romans 14 as "disputable matters" (NIV),
"doubtful disputations" (KJV), "disputes over opinion" (RSV), "doubtful
points" (NEB), "beliefs that are different from yours" (CEV), "personal
opinions" (GNB), "different ideas from yours" (LB) or "scruples" (AMP).
Just about everything not explicitly commanded or explicitly forbidden
by the Bible is encompassed here.
On the basis of what I've
learned from the Bible, I believe nudism to be an acceptable practice for
Christians, so long as their motives are pure and their activities are
honorable, respectful of others, and legal. I recently examined a book
by R. J. Rushdoony called The Institutes of Biblical Law. This 860-page
tome offers an extensive (some would say exhaustive) survey of Biblical
legislation such as I have never seen before. If it's an Old or New Testament
command, prohibition, rule or regulation, it's probably discussed in this
book. Much to the credit of the author, a section dealing with nakedness
is included. This section is very small, however (just over four pages).
The reason for such brevity becomes obvious from its very first sentence:
"There is no legislation in Scripture concerning nakedness . . ." That's
Rushdoony's conclusion. That's my conclusion. That's been the conclusion
of every Fig Leaf Forum reader who has given this matter
serious
study. There simply are no general rules forbidding nakedness in the Bible,
yet many in the church behave as if "You shall not be naked" is one of
the Ten Commandments. Why? Once again, I believe poor Biblical scholarship
combined with unquestioning adherence to cultural and religious traditions
are the major contributors to this unfortunate problem. As a result, "what
[we] consider good" is often "spoken of as evil" (Romans 14.16).
Christianity as a whole is
very tradition bound. So is the society in which we live. Traditions are
not necessarily bad in themselves unless we find them taking precedence
over Biblical truth. It's difficult for some people to set aside religious
or cultural traditions when shown that they don't conform to God's will
for them. That's one of the problems the Roman Christians were having in
Paul's time. That's one of the problems we're having today.
Christianity Today
magazine recently published an interview with John Stott, the highly regarded
evangelical Christian writer and preacher. Listen to what he had to say
about evaluating long-standing traditions:
The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform.
Legalism is another problem
that often gets in the way of honest Christian debate.
The Life Application
Bible talks about legalism in a note about Romans 14:
While the church must be uncompromising in its stand against activities expressly forbidden by Scripture (adultery, homosexuality, murder, theft), it should not create additional rules and regulations and give them equal standing with God's law. Many times Christians base their moral judgments on opinion, personal dislikes, or cultural bias rather than on the Word of God. When they do this, they show that their own faith is weak. They do not think God is powerful enough to guide his children.
Most denominations falling within
the scope of the evangelical and fundamentalist movements proudly proclaim
something such as this within their denominational tenets: "We believe
that the Holy Bible was given by inspiration of God, and that it only
constitutes the divine rule of Christian faith and practice." If this claim
is to be believed, then surely these — among all Christians — ought to
be the most familiar with the concept of Christian liberty, and yet they
seem to be among the groups most prone to succumbing to a legalistic religious
life full of rules and traditions never dreamed of by the writers of the
Bible.
Because some Christians are
strong in the faith and others are weak, disagreements between Christians
about how we are to live our earthly lives are bound to happen, just as
they did in Rome during the time of Paul. Who is to be the arbiter when
we disagree? The "stronger" Christian? The "weaker" Christian? Christian
friends? The pastor of our church? A denominational leader, perhaps? According
to Paul, the answer is, None of the above! In his commentary entitled
The
Daily Study Bible: The Letter to the Romans, William Barclay writes,
Paul lays down a great principle. No man has any right to criticize another man's servant. The servant is answerable to his master alone. Now all men are the servants of God. It is not open to us to criticize them, still less to condemn them. That right belongs to God alone. It is not in our judgment that a man stands or falls but in his. And, Paul goes on, if a man is honestly living out his principles as he sees them, God can make him able to stand.
For the sake of argument, let's
assume that we have revealed our interest in nudism to others in our church
family. Let's further assume that this news is not well received, and that
it causes our peers to view us (mistakenly, we think) as weak in the faith.
What should they do with us? Forcefully remind us of "the rules"? Give
us the corporate "cold shoulder"? Argue with us until we submit to their
way of thinking? Initiate some sort of punishment for us? Disfellowship
us, perhaps?
Wrong, says Paul in Romans
14.1: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable
matters" (NIV); "Give a warm welcome to any brother who wants to join you,
even though his faith is weak. Don't criticize him for having different
ideas from yours about what is right and wrong" (LB); "As for the man who
is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions" (RSV);
"If a man is weak in his faith you must accept him without attempting to
settle doubtful points" (NEB); "Welcome the person who is weak in his faith,
but do not argue with him about his personal opinions" (GNB); "As for the
man who is a weak believer, welcome him [into your fellowship], but not
to criticize his opinions or pass judgment on his scruples or
perplex him with discussions" (AMP). Does this sound like what your church
would do?
Even if they decide that
we are more than just "weak in the faith," — that we are in fact sinning
because we are nudists — the Bible would still not allow legalistic condemnations
from our peers. In Galatians 6.1, Paul writes, "Brothers, if someone is
caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently"
(my emphasis). This concept of gentle restoration leaves no room
for the harsh, judgmental sanctions so often applied by our fellow Christians.
I like how Charles Swindoll
paraphrases the main points of Romans 14 in his book The Grace Awakening:
Nothing that is not specifically designated as evil in Scripture is evil — but rather a matter of one's personal preference or taste. So let it be. Even if you personally would not do what another is doing, let it be. And you who feel the freedom to do so, don't flaunt it or mock those who disagree. We are in the construction business, not destruction. And let's all remember that God's big-picture kingdom plan is not being shaped by small things like what one person prefers over another, but by large things, like righteousness and peace and joy.
Jesus talked about the problem
of Christians judging other Christians, too. "Why do you look at the speck
of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your
own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of
your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite,
first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly
to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7.3-5). In our situation,
the
speck can represent the "small things" (the disputable matters) that
cause disagreements between Christians.
The plank represents the
unloving and judgmental attitudes that so often accompany these disagreements.
One shouldn't have too much difficulty deciding where the larger, more
serious problem lies.
To be honest, I can live
with other Christians thinking I am a brother who is weak in the faith
because I'm a nudist. I don't think it's true, and I'm not happy that they
feel that way about me, but I can live with it. I can also live with the
fact that other Christians think that the Bible condemns human nakedness
and labels it inherently sinful and shameful. I believe this, too, is a
falsehood (as I hope has been shown repeatedly in this newsletter) but
I'm willing to accept that between many other Christians and myself this
will be a disputable matter. What I simply cannot abide is the judgment
and condemnation that so often accompanies disagreements over this particular
disputable matter. Such conduct is totally uncalled for and is completely
unbiblical. "Who are you to judge someone else's servant?" Paul demands
in Romans 14.4. "You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you
look down on your brother?" repeats Paul in Romans 14.10. The absolute
unacceptability of this kind of judgmental, censorious behavior between
Christian brothers and sisters is most assuredly
not a disputable
matter.
It should go without saying
that it's just as inappropriate for us to condemn others for not accepting
nudism as it is for them to condemn us for accepting it. Between us it
may be a disputable matter, but no one except God has the right to judge
either side in the debate. In modern vernacular, Paul advises us to "agree
to disagree" if necessary, but never, never are we to let the matter
interfere with our fellowship with each other.
Poor Biblical scholarship,
closed-mindedness and judgmentalism are difficult problems to overcome.
At the very least, we should all be praying that God will open minds and
hearts toward us and toward Christian nudism. We can, of course, try to
avoid potential problems by not discussing nudism with others. Keeping
things from other Christians is often viewed in a negative light, but it's
not always right to look at it this way. Christian liberty can be very
offensive to those who are weak in the faith. Swindoll writes in The
Grace Awakening, "One of the marks of maturity is the ability to handle
liberty without flaunting it. Mature folks don't flaunt their privileges.
They enjoy them fully, yet quietly . . . privately . . . with those of
like mind, who aren't offended by the liberty."
If quiet discretion is not
an option — or ceases to be an option — then we may eventually be faced
with resistance from our brothers and sisters in Christ. We need to "beseech"
them to consider at least two questions: (1) Does Scripture ever allow
you to judge and condemn a brother or sister in the faith, especially over
things that are not explicitly forbidden by the Bible? (2) Does any dispute,
no matter how large it may be, ever excuse you from obeying our Lord's
commandment: "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one
another" (John 13.34)?
In the final analysis, this
whole thing is not about getting others to accept
nudism (although
that would be nice). It's about getting others to accept nudists.
Romans 14 is not about settling our differences. It's about living
with each other despite our differences. I've read that Richard
Baxter, the influential 17th century Puritan minister, had this as his
personal motto: "In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty;
in all things, charity." What a wonderful world it would be if all Christians
would live in the spirit of these words.
This article is from Issue 14 of Fig Leaf Forum and was written by the editor.
Copyright © 1994-2008 Fig Leaf Forum All Rights Reserved
This Web site is printer-friendly.
