In this thread (check it out) at The CMCentral.com Forum, we had a discussion of Christian liberty and what it means in a practical situation involving a guy, a glass of beer, and Romans 14. I had this to say:

This is a pertinent question; let’s not get all caught up in whether or not it’s okay to drink. Just assume for a second that it is fine and dandy, but your church has a problem with it, if you’re in a leadership position. To you, your freedom leads you to occasionally drink, to them, their doctrine leads them not to., ever.

Now, you may give up drinking to placate them, but the question still remains — are they limiting freedom because of conscience, or because of legalism? The problem with making hard and fast rules like this is that it does turn into legalism, especially when scripture actually extols wine as something that makes the heart glad (cf the Psalms, in context of alcohol as a gift of God). It’s one thing for you not to drink in front of a former alcoholic, or someone whos family has been wrecked by alcohol, but it’s another thing entirely to be asked to give it up altogether as a matter of rule.

I had the same thing with tattooing. I would dearly love to get a tat, but most of my community thinks that tattoing, body piercing, and dressing like anything but a businessman or a prep is wrong wrong wrong. No one’s made a rule of it, except in their personal lives, but I’ve chosen to limit my freedom because of other people. I don’t think they’re right; in fact, I think they’re dead wrong. But it’s not important enough to me.

It still bothers me that I have to bend myself to this groupthink. But I consider myself as showing love to them. If your community is that important to you, then by all means give up alcohol. They don’t have to be right, after all, for you to show love to them.

No tag for this post.