All text on this website is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
This is my motto: Things in themselves are neither good nor evil; it is our use of them which makes them so. Remember it, because this is going to pop up a lot.
There are several issues on which Christians argue bitterly that this applies to. Take sabbath-keeping, for instance. Some in the "Completed Jews" movement claim that regarding Sunday as the Sabbath is pagan, because it was named after the Sun. I would say that when we worship on a Sunday, very few of us actually worship the Sun - most of us are worshipping God. The fact that the day was once named after a pagan god means little - it is Who we worship that counts. The same could apply to the celebrations of Easter and Christmas, and to Christmas trees. The thing in itself means nothing - what we choose to do with it does. This is what I believe Paul was speaking of in Romans 14:2-6, 10:15:
"One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand. One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God...
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God." So each of us shall give account of himself to God. Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died." (RSV)
Paul says that our consciences, our beliefs here are important. In itself, nothing is unclean, nothing is offensive to God - but if your conscience tells you against something, then to you that thing is sin. If I truly believed that Sunday worship was pagan, then when I worshipped on a Sunday I would in effect be worshipping a pagan god. In itself, the thing is neutral - but in practise it may not be so for me. Take candles for instance. There is no commandment either for or against the use of candles in worship in scripture. Some Christians abhor candles, considering that they lead to paganism or sorcery, which some others find they make them more reverent. That is an issue when our conscience must be out guide, to stop us from sinning. The same could apply to minister's garments, what we call a minister, or the use of musical instruments, among other things. C S Lewis made a rather good point along this line in his "Screwtape Letters". The story is a conversation between two devils, with Screwtape giving advice to his nephew on how to stop his "patient" from becoming a Christian:
"And it isn't the doctrines on which we chiefly depend for producing malice. The real fun is working up hatred between those who say "mass" and those who say "holy communion" when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker's doctrine and Thomas Aquinas', in any form which would hold water for five minutes. And all the purely indifferent things—candles and clothes and what not—are an admirable ground for our activities. We have quite removed from men's minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials—namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the "low" churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his "high" brother should be moved to irreverence, and the "high" one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his "low" brother into idolatry. And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility."
Of course, this is not the only example of this principle in scripture, it can be found elsewhere too. Take baptism, for instance. Let us suppose that a devout Muslim who cannot speak English stumbles into one of those mass baptisms in the sea. He goes forth out of curiosity perhaps, and gets dunked. Is he then a Christian? Of course not, and no one would say he was. Baptism without faith is just a bath; saying a salvation prayer without belief is just talking to yourself; speaking in tongues or prophesying without faith is just babbling. We are based on faith - not external appearances (John 7:24). In fact we are ordered to hide outward appearances of piety (Matthew 7). The appearance of something is not all that relevant - our belief in it is. Baptism is only real if we believe in it - otherwise it is simply ineffective. All these things are neutral in themselves - it is the power we give them through faith that matters.
Of course Paul did not mean for his statement to apply to absolutely everything - that much is obvious. If a man commits adultery, believing it to be aceptable, it is still adultery. If a man murders not believing or knowing it to be wrong, then legally he is insane, not innocent. Certain things are not neutral in themselves - mostly actions rather than objects. The action of murder is categorically condemned; the action of love is universally approved. These are concepts and actions, arising from abstract principles rather than concrete objects. Objects - like trees, food, drunk and certain actions derive their meaning from the outside, from us, rather than having it as part of their definition. They become symbols, with meanings greater than their simple definition through human belief. Abstract principles have their value encoded as part of what they are - their value cannot be removed if they are still to make sense. Thus love or hate cannot lose their good/bad value without ceasing to signify anything. You can imagine God (who is also an abstract principle) as either good or bad - but once we say He is neither then He becomes meaningless to us. Pork can be either clean or unclean - but the definition of what pork is is not dependent on our value of it. Concrete principles require our understanding of them to mean anything in terms of value. If I view baptism as a good thing, something with meaning, it gains symbolic value. If I view it as a bad thing it would also have symbolic value for me. In itself, and to those who assign no meaning to it, it is just a wash.
Concrete principles are ours to claim. God has left it to us to assign meaning to them - which is why we must make up our own minds. If we believe them to be wrong then God will view out use of them as wrong, and vice versa. We have no such freedom over abstract principles, by virtue of what they are.
"But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." (Romans 14:23 RSV)
© Dubhóc MacEògainn, 2005.