Query: Submission to the weaker brother?

[Bootstrap]

The other passage to reference is Romans 14.

Yes, that's important.

At the same time, the weaker brother should not hold the church hostage.In the church I once was part of, there was a man who wanted to keep his beard even though that was not the practice in that church. When he joined the church he asked the bishop if he could keep his beard. The bishop replied, "Can you live at peace with the rest of us who don't wear beards? If so, you can keep yours."

When I was part of an intentional community, a group in the church decided to stop eating pork, and one day one of them looked at me eating a pork chop and told me it was causing him to stumble.

Some people are professional stumblers. That's not what these passages are about. I think the issue is not just that eating meat offered to idols might bother some brethren, but that it might actually lead them to stumble, bringing them into temptation that might harm them spiritually.

To me, Paul seems to be saying that it's OK for Christians to have different convictions about even some fairly major things, but not to cause our brother to stumble.

[Bootstrap]

How far should a person allow himself to be pushed?

There's a balance in Scripture.

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

[ken_sylvania]

I understand what you're saying. But I've seen these passages used by people who are trying to coerce other people in the church to go along with their thinking. They can argue pretty strongly from the weaker brother perspective, though it's pretty evident that I'm actually the weaker brother because I don't see certain dangers.

How far should a person allow himself to be pushed?

I am personally of the opinion that this problem tends to be worse in some of the small groups that form with the "brotherhood governance" mindset, eschewing strong leadership in favor of "brotherhood consensus." The idea sounds great, but in reality it allows one or two people to hold the group hostage (because of course, as long as I don't agree, we don't have total unity, and we shouldn't move forward with any changes, etc. unless we are all unified). I suppose a similar problem could develop (and has) with strong leaders pushing things without support from the congregation.

I can't think of any Scriptural authority for me to prohibit you from doing anything because of my weakness. But I really struggle trying to establish any kind of a guide on how to relate to someone calling himself "the weaker brother" in order to strong-arm others.
You have a lot more life experience than I have, and I'd like if you could expand on some of your thoughts on how to relate.
I'm thinking too that somehow a church needs to differentiate between things posing a clear and immediate spiritual danger and those where the danger is less clear or less urgent.

[Bootstrap]

I can't think of any Scriptural authority for me to prohibit you from doing anything because of my weakness. But I really struggle trying to establish any kind of a guide on how to relate to someone calling himself "the weaker brother" in order to strong-arm others.

In Paul's letters, do you think these people would have seen themselves as weaker brothers? Sometimes I think the "weaker brother" is the one who is insisting that he is the stronger one.

[Josh]

I like the phrase "he who is weak eats vegetables only".

[Bootstrap]

I can't think of any Scriptural authority for me to prohibit you from doing anything because of my weakness. But I really struggle trying to establish any kind of a guide on how to relate to someone calling himself "the weaker brother" in order to strong-arm others.

I was thinking about this again, and I was reminded of a woman who took a small class I was teaching, a very pretty young woman who wore very flattering dresses, form fitting and too tight. I didn't figure out any way to tell her this, but I would have loved to have a way to tell her that dressing a little more modestly would be helpful because of my weakness.

Of course, there was no good way to say that. But how does that relate to this passage?

[JimFoxvog]

I understand what you're saying. But I've seen these passages used by people who are trying to coerce other people in the church to go along with their thinking. They can argue pretty strongly from the weaker brother perspective, though it's pretty evident that I'm actually the weaker brother because I don't see certain dangers.

How far should a person allow himself to be pushed?

Good point! I've more often seen these passages used by those in power, not by the weak, to exert control over the ones who really are weak.

Paul didn't allow himself to be pushed around by those who thought eating with Gentiles was scandalous. He used some pretty coarse language.

Mary, "meek and mild" said some pretty strong things about those in power.

So, when some are trying to push us, I think we need to submit to God, not a controlling person.

[temporal1]

OP, Page 1: (max, your OP link doesn't work.)

I haven't heard of this phrase before. RZehr first mentions it and Ernie includes it in his list. Would you gentlemen kindly provide a definition for this phrase for my edification?

# 23
Submission to the weaker brother. e.g. submitting in “lifestyle standards”.
viewtopic.phpf=4&t=183&p=4070#p4048

I'm interested in finding its corollary in our books.

not sure if max will be around, but ..
The Pilgrim Church .. Page 1 / Rzehr first mentioned
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=183&p=4018&hilit=weaker#p4018

Submission to the weaker brother. One place this can be found and practically followed is in lifestyle standards.

before this continued discussion, i often used the recognized analogy of not offering alcohol to a known alcoholic; i have known of many who chose not to drink at all, rather than potentially cause another to stumble. many churches have membership rules against it; some believe this to be wrong, and not at all scriptural.

these passages specifically refer to interactions between Christian brothers and sisters, in and out of the fellowship setting. the world does not recognize the importance - in the same way.

the world can recognize the morality, immorality, amorality of choices, even legality of acts+choices, but, Christians look to Jesus for personal and group leadership, which is unique (and often confused.)

the world generally scoffs at Jesus, even when certain responses overlap. where Christians seek Christ, the world wants to credit human reasoning, alone, to discredit Jesus. this happened to Jesus, to His face, on earth. He was not surprised; or changed. He knew what they did.

in addition to not offering alcohol to the alcholic, or consuming it in his presence, the alcoholic also has the responsibility to avoid the temptation, to avoid being in the presence of the temptation; to refuse the temptation when it cannot be avoided; to call on the Holy Spirit for guidance and strength.

this is the ongoing inward battle against sin that we all wrestle with, no one is always the stronger brother; that Christians can overcome sin, with the help of the Holy Spirit ..
the importance of the Holy Spirit has been discussed recently in max's Addictions thread.
How to Overcome Addictions?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=139&hilit=addictions

i appreciate reading about how these important passages can be twisted and abused.

i wonder how this relates/compares with other religions, for one example, Muslims, wherein they can go to elaborate lengths to control others, in the name of saving themselves?

Jesus addresses both, warning not to be a stumbling block, but, also, to accept personal responsibility. hmm.

[Bootstrap]

in addition to not offering alcohol to the alcholic, or consuming it in his presence, the alcoholic also has the responsibility to avoid the temptation, to avoid being in the presence of the temptation; to refuse the temptation when it cannot be avoided; to call on the Holy Spirit for guidance and strength.

I think that's true with women's modesty, too.

Women should dress in a way that doesn't make it particularly hard for men to do so. Men should take responsibility for their eyes and their thought life.

[temporal1]

in addition to not offering alcohol to the alcholic, or consuming it in his presence, the alcoholic also has the responsibility to avoid the temptation, to avoid being in the presence of the temptation; to refuse the temptation when it cannot be avoided; to call on the Holy Spirit for guidance and strength.

I think that's true with women's modesty, too.

Women should dress in a way that doesn't make it particularly hard for men to do so. Men should take responsibility for their eyes and their thought life.

well, yes, on this forum, this is likely to enjoy a general consensus.

in less conservative churches, it is a problem, not likely to be discussed therein. not as things are today.

on MD, i recall serious complaints about church attire, in Europe, even in Catholic Churches.
i'm surprised to have seen bare arms, spaghetti straps, "leggings," and different formerly "basic" dress standards ignored today, even in churches considered to be conservative. many seem to not have any memory of dress standards that were formerly recognized in all denoms. i find this sad. but i see it.

occasionally, in comments on news reports, i have tried to share a word about modest dress for children and women, especially pregnant women.

i find today's fashions of displaying every stage of pregnancy, with or without any covering of the belly, unwise and undesirable. it makes me think of a science class, wherein stages of gestation are being studied .. i don't see the necessity.

further, with cases of pregnant women being attacked and even killed for theft of their unborn, displaying every stage seems .. as bad judgment as wearing a Rolex watch in gaudy display.
it's a serious temptation for thieves. an attractive nuisance.

however, when i have suggested/recommended modesty, in the world, the response is that i am some sort of evil being, out to ruthlessly+deliberately undermine women's rights.

i'm not reading news in general now, but, if i did, i would continue to occasionally broach the subject. yes, even risking personal attack. some may benefit, even if not responding.

not to preach, scold, or judge ..
but in attempt to inject some thinking about an important topic that deserves to have at least two sides. after all, i really-seriously care about children and women. they deserve better messages. this goes for men, too. the messages are for all.

in your case, in a classroom setting of some sort, possibly you could set dress standards for the class? even if some ignored, the statement would be made, the subject addressed, without making it personal. male-only classes?

you could not approach the young woman directly about it. would any church recommend this?
if you cannot control others' dress, and it is a problem for you, then, i think it would be wise to not put yourself in that setting (my view.) your church, your brothers, should be asked.