In this short article, I want to address what has become an uncritically accepted Christian principle. The existence of grey areas. If you have been around for any time, you probably heard the expression "this is a grey area issue." A grey area issue is an issue in theology or ethics that refers to a topic or behavior that is not explicitly addressed or clearly commanded or forbidden in Scripture. These issues fall between moral black and white—thus, they are considered “grey”—requiring wisdom, conscience, and discernment rather than strict rule-following.
What are some examples of grey area issues? Well, ethically speaking, it would be things like smoking, dancing, listening to secular music, watching TV, wearing a bathing suit, going to the beach, drinking alcohol, etc, etc. As you might imagine, this list could go on into infinity. Theologically speaking, grey areas might be considered such doctrines as the rapture theory, infant baptism, divorce in certain circumstances, one's eschatological belief etc., etc. Another problem emerges in this space in that theological grey areas have experienced considerable growth due to the influence of postmodern philosophy on Christian belief in contemporary times.
When it comes to ethical grey areas, one has to ask the question whether or not God would have some sinful behaviors, others that are not, and then a third category of "it depends." I reject the notion of grey areas because sinful behavior, according to Jesus, comes from the heart. According to Matt. 15:18-20, It is the things that come from the heart that defile men.
“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. “These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”
In addition to this, John informs us that sin is lawlessness. Anyone who sins also breaks God's law because sin is lawlessness. Now, all human behavior is driven by the desires of the heart, which is a form of behavior itself. Sinful behavior, as Jesus said, comes from a sinful heart. That being said, if a behavior is not condemned, then how could it be unethical or sinful where God's law is concerned? On the other hand, if a behavior is not commanded, then how could it be sinful for one not to engage in that behavior? Moreover, if a behavior is commanded, how could it be that refusing to engage in that behavior could somehow, under certain circumstances, not be sinful? The point I am making is simply this: when it comes to human behavior, there is no neutrality where ethics are concerned. Either a specific behavior is sinful or it is not.
Grey area ethics and theology depend on the possibility of neutrality. But if the argument above holds, then neutrality is impossible. And if neutrality is impossible, then there are no grey areas. But where does that leave us when it comes to human behavior and beliefs when it comes to divine revelation? Perhaps a few examples would be helpful.
Let's take ethical grey areas first. Let's say that someone believes it is a sin to drink alcohol of any kind. Does this belief make the consumption of alcoholic beverages by a Christian a grey area? To begin with, let's ask the very necessary and very simple question: does the Bible command that Christians cannot consume alcoholic beverages? No, it does not. If it is a sin to drink wine, Jesus would have committed a sin inn John chapter 3 when He turned the water into wine. If the criteria for grey areas is simply "a Christian holds that the behavior is sinful," then the list of grey areas are endless. Secondly, if the criteria is xx number of Christians believe something is sinful, then what is the required minimum number and who gets to say? This collapeses into arbitrariness. There is no rational defense for what is and what is not a grey area.
For theology, the same standard of divine revelation should be applied. The clarity of Scripture serves as what we must believe dogmatically. If a particular subject is not clear, we do not have a grey area. What we have is an area for humility. Take the rapture for example. It is not quite as clear as many rapture proponents want it to be. And since that is the case, the view should be embraced or rejected with some humility. To claim that the Bible teaches something that it does not teach is sinful. How do we frame such positions? Perhaps, I believe that the Bible teaches a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ but I could be wrong about this. So I might say something like, "it seems to me the best biblical evidence teaches a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ." I always follow up with, I could be wrong. But I would not teach the resurrection of the saints with the same approach. In that case, I would be dogmatic because the clarity of Scripture demands it.
Now, when it comes to alcohol, the annoying elephant in the room is that modern pastors do not, for the most part, teach new believers that Christians are free to consume alcohol because the Bible clearly teaches this. Morever, if you judge a Christian who drinks alcohol because you refuse to accept the Bible's teaching on the subject, this behavior is sinful.
What does this mean? It means that you cannot take Paul's comments in 1 Cor. 8, 10, and Romans 14 about a weaker brother, extrapalate from those texts a general principle and then apply it as a sweeping generalization. In those texts, Paul was dealing with uneducated new believers who did not have Bibles and who had a legitimate basis for thier conscientious objections. You had Jewish believers who wouldn't eat anything offered to idols. You had Pythogorean philosophers who were vegetarians. And you had predominatly ignorant new believers who were not walking around with a Bible. These are the "weaker brothers." Once they come into knowledge of the truth, they cease to be weaker brothers. And if they insist on holding to these rules, regardless of the truth they now have, they become legalists and their judgments become sinful.
Our situation today with so-called weaker brothers has to do with people who are NOT ignorant of Scripture. The overwhelming majority of people who think it is a sin to drink a beer have been in the church for years and have read the Bible many, many times. They are not ignorant and they are not weaker brothers. They are legalists who are sinfully judging their brothers. And those who enable them are not loving them. Love them and tell them the truth. Legalism is based on self-righteousness and there is no room for this in the churches.
Grey areas are a myth. They do not exist. Let us put this very common myth to the side and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment