Where Should I Draw The Line?

by P.L. Hickling, Southport, England | Category: Bible Principles Of Separation | Nov 1987

The practical dilemma

The whole of Scripture consistently teaches that those who would serve God must be separated to Him. Accepting this, we must face the problem of putting it into practice. On the one hand, the logical extreme of separation is monasticism, in which nearly all contact with the world is eschewed. This certainly enforces separation, but it negates a major purpose for which men are saved: to be God's representatives among their fellows (2 Cor. 5:20).

The Lord Jesus, praying to His Father immediately before His crucifixion, said, "I pray not that Thou shouldest take them from the world... They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world ... as Thou didst send Me into the world, even so sent I them into the world" (John 17:15,16,18). He envisaged that His disciples would live ordinary working lives among men, as He had done Himself. On the other hand, separation could become merely theoretical, abstract and spiritual, without any effect on physical conduct; this is the essence of gnosticism. Scripture makes it quite clear that bodily holiness is required: "let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1). One must look for Scriptural principles which will govern the practical expression of separation to

God in ordinary life; one useful source of such principles is 1 Corinthians

10:14 - 11:1; in which the apostle Paul instructs those in the church in

Corinth about their behaviour.

A holy people

It is obvious that a separation to God is necessarily a separation from evil. Even non-Christians clearly recognize criminal and immoral actions which they rightly think are incompatible with a profession of Christian faith. Such things present no problem of recognition; we know that they are wrong, and if we fall into doing them we acknowledge that we have sinned. It is comparatively easy to see that there are some spiritual wrongs which must similarly be avoided, even if they are not thought of as evil by the world in general. "Flee from idolatry" says Paul to those in the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 10:14), and shows them that sharing together in the communion of the body and blood of Christ is incompatible with communion with demons. Does this have any current relevance? Few in western countries today would seriously consider regarding a manufactured object as God, but idolatry can be more subtle than that. The essence of idolatry lies in giving divine honour to that which is not God, and this can be applied to intellectual artefacts as well as to spiritual ones. For example, a thoroughgoing humanist system regards the welfare of mankind as the highest good, thus making a god out of mankind. On a lower level the widespread popular hedonism permits pleasure to take the place of God in people's lives, even if it is not explicitly worshipped.

Once this is recognized, it becomes apparent that things which are harmless, or even good in themselves, may have to be avoided if they are likely to lead us to put something else in God's place, or influence others to do so. The apostle Paul recognized the problems faced by those in the church of God in Corinth, and 1 Corinthians 10:23 11:1 sets out his guidance and personal example to them, as directed by the Holy Spirit.

Is it helpful?

Paul goes straight to the heart of the matter; the criteria for judgement are based not on the Christian's rights, but on his responsibilities. He takes as his example the eating of meat bought from the butcher's in the usual way. The meeting of apostles and elders at Jerusalem had earlier decided that among the "necessary things" that Christians should observe was that they should "abstain from things sacrificed to idols" (Acts 15:28,29). It was possible that meat bought in the shops had been formally so sacrificed; on the other hand, it was bought simply as meat, without any participation in the ritual, and it could be argued that what had been spoken over it beforehand was quite irrelevant, a meaningless form of words. Could it not simply be accepted as from God? The legal niceties of the matter are not considered; the food is indeed from God, but whether it should be taken depends on the effect on others. What is lawful may not be appropriate in the current circumstances. Paul tells them to buy and eat their meat, and eat meat at other peoples' dinner parties, without making over-scrupulous enquiries about its origins.

However, if it is specifically pointed out that the meat has been sacrificed to idols, the disciple should not take it. Why? What has been changed by the statement? The difference lies in the reaction of the one who has raised the issue. He may be a new disciple, very conscious of the power that the idolatrous system had over him before he was saved, and feeling the necessity of complete separation from anything connected with it. Any connection with what he had left behind leaves him confused and doubtful, destroying, rather than building up, his faith. "Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died", Paul wrote to the Romans.

Alternatively, the speaker may be an unbeliever, who wants to see whether the disciple will compromise his beliefs, as he sees it. The unbeliever's opinion may be falsely based, but if he is led to understand that the Christian does not really believe what he says, he has been stumbled by the other's action. The apostle makes his own position on this issue very clear; "if meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I make not my brother to stumble" (1 Cor. 8:13). He extends the principle to include the unbeliever in 1 Corinthians 10:31-33.

The questions we must ask ourselves are therefore: Will my action help others, or hinder them? Will it please others, or grieve them? Will it glorify God, or dishonour Him? Will it lead others towards God, or away from Him? This is a spirit very different from asking what is wrong with something, and claiming a legal privilege. Just as the man of Corinth might have had to forego his dinner to glorify God, we may have to give up something which in other circumstances we might thankfully receive. It should perhaps be pointed out here that it is very wrong of people with strong opinions to seek to force others to obey their wishes by playing on their desire not to give offence and claiming to be grieved if they do not get their own way (Rom. 14:3).

Some examples

A present day example might be taking wine with our meals. It is obvious from Scripture that wine was commonly used by the disciples, and, of course, the Lord Jesus miraculously made excellent wine for use at the wedding in Cana; even though a good supply had been used already. While therefore it may be received with thanks in the same way as other food, there may well be public occasions when it is best to abstain from taking it, particularly where others are inclined to take too much, and ply one with additional supplies. There is no hypocrisy in this; one is not pretending that one never takes it, but it is rather like the deliberate question of the scriptural example above. A similar decision may be made for private occasions too, to avoid encouraging young people to become used to drinking alcoholic drinks. This could be a serious cause of stumbling to them. Some judge that it is never expedient, although lawful, because of the possible effects on others. Each must make an informed judgement in the light of scriptural principles, being "fully assured in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5).

The principles might be applied to the quite different field of joining with other believers in Fellowships at work, school or university. It seems at first sight that there cannot possibly be any objection to joining with other members of the Body of Christ in prayer, worship and service in this limited sphere. However, doing the will of God requires separation from doctrinal error. Might an association outside the church context blur the dividing line, so that another might be given the impression that doctrinal differences were of little importance? On the other hand, might a refusal of any contact at all give such offence to another that he would be permanently antagonistic to any teaching on church matters? The apostle Paul, without compromising his teaching, put himself under voluntary restraints; "I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more... I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some" (I Cor. 9:19,22). The governing principle is the welfare of others, rather than oneself.

Finally, an example can be taken from the field of leisure and recreation. Very few people could maintain that they had none at all of these, but it has to be recognized that they may take the place of God in our lives. We must therefore question what we allow ourselves, judging the effect both on ourselves and on others. Does our television viewing encourage others to waste their time watching it? Does our possession of a video recorder encourage others to buy one, and watch films of which they would be ashamed if others knew? Many similar questions will come to readers' minds, but the same reasoning can be applied to answering each. Will my action lead another astray, or offend his conscience? Will it help to build up his spiritual life? Can I glorify God in doing it, and give God thanks for it? Such principles will help us to make decisions in doubtful cases, and thus glorify God in our lives.

P.L. Hickling, Southport, England | Nov 1987
Bible Principles Of Separation