We all are prone to both legalism and antinomianism. When we want to do something God’s law forbids, we become antinomian. If we want someone else to not do what we think they should not, we become legalists. We add to God’s law to try to restrain the other guy.
Eve was the first legalist, even before she ate the fruit. She told the serpent she and Adam were not to eat the fruit, true, but also they were not to touch it. False. God said no such thing. She added to God’s law. One could argue that not touching it would have been wise, but not that it would have been sin.
That distinction, “Doing X is not a sin, but it is unwise” or “Doing X is not a sin, but it’s not ideal” likely has some legitimate applications. Were I to live on a diet of twinkies someone might try to say I am in sin by reminding me that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 6: 19-20). That argument, I’d argue, would fall to the ground on the basis of Colossians 2:6. There Paul commands us not to judge one another over what we eat or drink. What we’re left with is unwise, or not ideal but not a sin.
This solution carries with it, however, a bevy of dangers that come along for the ride. Too often, “The Bible doesn’t say X is a sin, but I believe X is unwise” translates to “You are in sin, and I don’t need to demonstrate it from the Bible.” I’ve seen it a hundred times. “I’m not saying it’s a sin to divorce an unfaithful spouse, but God hates divorce.” “It’s not a sin to marry someone from another culture, but it’s generally unwise.” “Smoking cigars isn’t a sin, according to the Bible, but it isn’t ideal.”
Though this is decidedly impious, I call this approach being more pious than God. Those who speak in this way are essentially saying, “God doesn’t forbid this, but I do.” We are the Pharisees. Too often we succumb to those who would spy out our freedom (Galatians 2:4). We take on the yokes of men.
Some years ago I received a call from a pastor friend. I was, at that time, serving as editor of Tabletalk magazine. My friend was quite upset with me because I had tapped a man in his presbytery to write an article for us. That man, he explained, was undergoing a divorce that the presbytery had not yet ruled on, whether it was biblical or not. While they spent time trying to answer that question, they advised the man not to do any public ministry.
My reply was simple. First, how could I have possibly known that? Second, where is the sin on my part, or his part? “Well, he didn’t submit to the presbytery” he said. “Oh my,” I replied. “I must have misheard you. I thought you said presbytery advised him to not do any public ministry.” “Yes,” my friend said, “that’s exactly what I said.” “Where then is the failure to submit?” “Writing the article was the failure to submit.” “Did the presbytery,” I asked, “forbid him or advise him?”
I went on to explain to my friend that if the presbytery was unwilling to give the writer a command, they can’t grumble if he doesn’t take its advice. We all want the power to control people without the responsibility of defending it. People are eager to judge others for sins they can’t find in the Bible.
My advice to you. No, God’s command to you is that you not put burdens on people that He does not require. That you not judge others for having differing preferences from your own in adiaphorous places. That when the Bible calls us to prophetically thunder God’s Word, “Thou shalt not…” that we thunder it. Otherwise, judge not.
Just curious: based on the picture you inserted, are you making a comment about marriages with people from different background, i.e. that it’s not sinful for people from different racial background to get marry, but it’s not the ideal? That’s the only conclusion that I can draw because your piece has nothing about marriage, and yet that picture is front and center of your blog. Please let me know if I read you completely wrong. Thank you, brother.
Yes, you did read it incorrectly. I literally googled “Ruth, tapestry, image” because the piece concludes with an entire paragraph on Ruth and God’s providence in and through her marriage to Boaz.”And it came to pass” is used multiple times in the book of Ruth and is the title of this piece. My chapter on God’s sovereignty over details in my book Almighty Over All is built around the story of Ruth for the same reason. So the controversy of the day, marrying someone from a different background, had literally nothing to do with the choice. That said, two posts earlier I responded pretty directly to that question. The image for that piece was a wedding topper with an African American groom and a caucasian bride. Hope that helps and that you are well my friend. God bless you.
Actually I was asking about that piece with the wedding topper on 1/12. My question was and still is: in your opinion, is interracial marriage a “not the ideal,” as the picture sits under your heading. Or is it an adiaphorous, with which you end your piece? It’s just not clear to me, because you are speaking of situation that is not ideal and you did not address marriage in your piece, yet you have that topper. Thanks for answering. In Christ,
I thought it was plenty clear- “This solution carries with it, however, a bevy of dangers that come along for the ride. Too often, “The Bible doesn’t say X is a sin, but I believe X is unwise” translates to “You are in sin, and I don’t need to demonstrate it from the Bible.” I’ve seen it a hundred times. “I’m not saying it’s a sin to divorce an unfaithful spouse, but God hates divorce.” “It’s not a sin to marry someone from another culture, but it’s generally unwise.” “Smoking cigars isn’t a sin, according to the Bible, but it isn’t ideal.”
Though this is decidedly impious, I call this approach being more pious than God. Those who speak in this way are essentially saying, “God doesn’t forbid this, but I do.” We are the Pharisees. Too often we succumb to those who would spy out our freedom (Galatians 2:4). We take on the yokes of men.” This position with respect to “interracial” marriage is not a sin but is unwise” is really just a claim that it is a sin, which it isn’t, but that the accuser knows he can’t support his position from Scripture. Hope that clears it up.
To be more succinct, the “warning” in the title is against that kind of language, “not a sin but unwise” not about “interracial” marriage.
You’re right. It was clear. Sorry, I was reading more into it than I needed to. Thank you for the clarification.
No trouble. For what it’s worth, a quick glance of the title and the image could have been misleading.