⁵ 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.  ⁶ He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.  ⁷ For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.  ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord (Romans 14:5-8, NIV).

As I mentioned in my last post in ‘Drink to the Glory of God?’ I now what to turn to a topic even more controversial than can a Christian drink alcohol to the glory of God.  It is: should a Christian institution or denomination make rules regarding the Christian life which the Lord does not require?  The short answer, as you may guess from my earlier post, is No.  The conscience of the Christian is bound to his Lord, the Lord Jesus.  It is Jesus who dictates what a Christian should do.  It is the Risen Jesus, who determines what is right and wrong for a Christian.  We see this in Romans 14 in the verses above.  One eats to the Lord and another abstains to the Lord.  We belong to the Lord Jesus, and in matters of adiaphora, Jesus and Jesus alone is Lord of the believer’s conscience, since it is before him that we must give an account.  Thus, if the Lord does not forbid alcohol for the Christian, than the Christian institutions or denominations should not forbid it.  For institutions or denominations to forbid it is to supplant the Lordship of Jesus over the conscience with the institution or denomination.  Vos says it well,

“Let us ask ourselves in all seriousness, what right has any person or power on earth to bind the conscience of the Christian in matters in which Christ has declared that conscience to be free under God? The very heart of the Scripture teaching concerning the use of things indifferent is that the Christian is free to use or to abstain from using such things, according to his own conscience, and that for his use or abuse of this freedom he is accountable to God. The moment that specific rules are made by men concerning things indifferent, the moment that any man or body of men requires of the Christian abstinence from things indifferent for religious or moral reasons, at that moment liberty has become bondage, and the conscience, left free by God as to things indifferent, has become enslaved to the commandments of men. At that moment abstinence ceases to be voluntary and becomes obligatory, and the entire Scripture teaching on this subject is utterly perverted” (Separated Life).

Because of this, Christian schools should take note.  Denominations should take note.  Neither have the authority under God to bind the conscience concerning things which are indifferent.  Also, students who proclaim Jesus is Lord, should not give their conscience to an institution or denomination to lord it over them in matters of things indifferent.  Does this mean that schools ought have no rules regarding alcohol?  Not at all.  They are free to prohibit alcohol on their premises.  They are to preach against drunkenness, but regarding things indifferent they cannot forbid what the Lord Jesus does not forbid.  Quite frankly, this is what troubles me most about what Mohler and Moore talked about at the alcohol and ministry forum.  They too easily talked about the institution and Convention as having an authority which it does not have under God.  They are endorsing the usurping of the Lordship of Jesus over the individual conscience in matters that are indifferent.  It is akin to out-lawing the consumption of Big Mac’s simply because of their poor nutritional content.  Jesus makes no such prohibition, nor should we. 

Notice also what these ‘lifestyle statements’ do.  It is not enough for colleges, seminaries, and denominations for Jesus to dictate what a Christian should do with things indifferent, they need to ‘ensure’ that the Christian will not sin by making rules that Jesus doesn’t make.  In other words, in the truest sense of the word denominations and schools or churches that require abstinence from things indifferent are legalists.  Jesus’ lordship is not enough.  They need to police Christians in areas where Jesus is silent.  God help us!

1.  Because alcohol is in the category of adiaphora, Christians will until Jesus returns have differing views on it.

2.  The differing views are a result of faith.  Those who are strong of faith see alcohol as indifferent, thus they may enjoy their liberty or they may restrict their liberty, but ultimately they see alcohol as indifferent.  Those who are weak in faith see alcohol as evil in and of itself.  Thus, they see no liberty with alcohol, and see any consumption of alcohol as sin.

3.  To drink alcohol to the glory of God in Romans 14 is to drink in such a way as to not cause a brother to stumble.  This means that the strong will not flaunt his liberty in front of the weak.  This also means that the strong will be careful to know his company if he consumes alcohol in a group.  This freedom brings responsibility (i.e., Spiderman) so that the strong knows as much as possible where others are in their faith before he exercises his freedom.  Love, it seems, requires this.  Thus, in light of Jen’s question(s), I think there is caution to the strong to be careful when and how alcohol is consumed (I will speak to this a bit more, once we cover 1 Cor).  Not because the consumption is evil, but because of love for another.  As much as possible, then, I think consumption should be done in private, but not in seclusion.  Consumption in restaurants is not forbidden, but it is risky.  Again, not because the consumption is wrong, but because of love for another.

4.  The weak in faith regarding alcohol are not expected to remain weak in faith.  The weak in faith are to grow in their faith, so that they become strong.  Does this mean, that all will one day drink alcohol to show their strength?  No!  Because if we must prove our strength, then we are not strong, we are still weak.  But it does mean that as the weak grow in their faith, they will come to see alcohol as adiaphora.

5.  The freedom of the strong cannot be taken away by an institution, denomination, or church.  If a church, institution, or denomination makes a requirement of abstinence for Christians regarding alcohol, they have just replaced Christ as Lord of the conscience for the believer.  Even if they say that is not what they are doing, according to biblical teaching, teaching explicit in Romans 14, that is exactly what they are doing.  It is to this issue that I will turn next, before we move on to 1 Corinthians.