I am calling this message “Un-American.” I don’t know that you’d give it that name, but some certainly might. That is because “America” means different things to different people, and the adjective “American” therefore means different things as well. Perhaps the subtitle to this message might explain my thinking – “The Limitation of Liberty.” Some people calling themselves “patriots” (another very ambiguous term) believe that “liberty” and “America” are synonyms. While it is true that this country affords more liberties than perhaps any other place in the world, it is not true that we have complete and perfect liberty. Furthermore, that was never God’s intention for any nation. In fact, as long as there is a God, there can never be absolute human liberty. Only Jehovah is perfectly free and autonomous to do whatever He chooses. Whatever liberty man possesses, has been granted to that man under the authority of God.

You see, there are a number of definitions to the word “liberty.” If it is merely freedom from unjust or undue governmental control, then America is supposed to be the land of liberty. But definition #3 says, “A right and power to engage in CERTAIN actions without control or interference.” That definition suggests that there are certain actions which are or should be controlled. Many Americans – beginning with Baptists – believe that everyone should have the right to worship freely and to express any theology they choose, whether it is idolatrous, and heretical or Biblical and orthodox. But I’m not sure that God ultimately agrees with that. Isn’t the Great White Throne all about putting that liberty to an end? One definition of “liberty” is “the condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude or forced labor.” And the first definition, at least in my dictionary is: “The condition of being free from restriction or control.” But aren’t speed limits a form of restriction and control? Isn’t a law which forbids assisting someone in his suicide a form of restriction? Should our love of liberty give doctors permission to kill and abort unwanted babies? And for that matter what about the man who kills the abortionist? Shouldn’t he have the liberty to kill whomever he chooses? Of course not. America is not a land of absolute liberty, and I hope that it never will be. If that is un-American, then I guess that I am un-American.

But so was the Apostle Paul. He says, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of.” We will come back to this in a few minutes, but he is teaching that one way in which we ruin our good testimony is by pressing our liberties too far. “Judge this… that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat… destroy not him with thy meat.”

The limitations of our liberty.
Judy, Jackie and I are constantly confusing each other by referring to our neighbor Andy. The man on the west side of our house is named Anderson, and everyone calls him Andy. The family on the east is named Tenney, but the husband’s first name is Andy. We are surrounded by Andys. Both Andys have big locust trees in their back yards, and they both had wind-chimes in those trees. Before the winds got really, really strong, we were caught in the middle of a wind-chime war. But wouldn’t you know it, both Andys decided to take their wind-chimes down, and now we are chime-less.

I have always liked wind-chimes – probably because my mother did, but I cannot hear them without thinking about one of the early families in our church in Calgary. (I believe that I have mentioned this before, but the illustration is appropriate, so I am repeating it.) The family to which I am referring was from the Philippines, where idolatry and superstition is different than here. When that family visited our house one day and heard our little wind-chime they were offended, because in their country it is believed that the noise of the wind-chime drives away evil spirits. They were of the opinion that the use of a wind-chime indicates the presence of a stupid superstition and therefore should not be found in the home of a true Christian.

This opinion of theirs might be likened to the problems that Paul describes here in Romans 14. God has no where in His Word forbidden the use of wind-chimes, at least as far as I have seen. And as far as Paul was concerned God does not have a problem with what foods Christians eat. “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself.” In Acts 10 Peter was told by God to kill and eat any of a number of creatures which had been previously forbidden to Israel. When Peter argued that he had never yet broken the dietary laws of Israel in eating anything common or unclean, he was rebuked by the Lord. “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” The word “common” might suggest any proper meat, but one which had not been slaughtered by one of the servants of the Jewish priests. The word “unclean” must refer to those foods which were forbidden to Israel in the days of Moses.

Despite no longer being forbidden, Paul teaches us that we should not use our liberty to hurt our weaker brother – the one who doesn’t yet understand the truth in this matter. I don’t remember if Judy was unhappy about it, but we took down our little wind-chime. At that point that Philipino family didn’t have the opportunity to learn the truth about chimes. But if we had insisted on our right to keep that set of little tinkling bells, we might never have gotten to first base with them. We might never have seen them again. If the same thing took place today between us, after years of Bible teaching and Christian maturing, I would probably explain that superstition has nothing to do with any of the noises in our back yard. And if we didn’t have neighbors with chimes, we might have some ourselves. Here in North American, no one should have spiritual problems with wind-chimes – other problems perhaps, but not spiritual problems.

When should we voluntarily limit our liberties? Paul answers: when our liberty becomes an unnecessary stumbling stone to someone else. We should be willing to forego our privileges when they hinder the work of the Lord, or when they bring reproach upon the name of Christ. If our freedom kills an opportunity to minister the gospel to a lost man, then we need to weigh the value of that soul against the value of our liberty. If when we exercise our rights, and we drive a new believer out of the church, we will have to stand before our Saviour to give an account of that deed. It may be the American thing to do, but It is not necessarily the Biblical thing to demand our rights.

But what about the weak brother – that man who is a child of God, but who differs with us on these points? As I said a couple of weeks ago, most of us consider the other fella to be that “weaker brother.” How should we define this “weakness”? The Greek word is “astheneo” (as-then-eh’-o), and it is translated “sick” just about as often as it is “weak.” In other words, it is talking about someone who should get well and who we expect to get stronger. If that man is taught the truth and for whatever reason still clings to his weak opinion, then at some point, the “stronger” brother should be allowed to move on, eating whatever meat he likes. At some point the “weak brother” is the one who is not being charitable. At some point the tables become reversed and the “weak brother” is holding back the stronger man. In point of fact, it doesn’t matter who is the strong and who is the weak, we both have the responsibility to try to be a blessing to each other.

In either case, it is our responsibility to make sure that our good is not evil spoken of.
In many ways there is not much that we can do if people wish to slander us and our Saviour. If they want to accuse us of ungodly rituals carried out behind closed doors on Sunday evenings, the only thing that we can say is, “Come on in and find out for yourselves.” Our Baptist forefathers were accused of terrible things, purely to keep others from hearing our gospel. And when the liars, the “tergiversaters” and wickedly “mendacious” (see today’s church bulletin) wish to speak, there is nothing that we can do to silence them. But we had better be absolutely sure that we don’t give them cause to attack our reputation or our Saviour.

If I clipped out a dozen quotations from my reference books, I could give you logical statements which tell us to both be very concerned about our reputations and to have no concern about them at all. If the child of God is conscientiously serving God according to his understanding of the Bible, then he shouldn’t give much thought to what people might say about him. “Look at that family which goes to church three times a week – what lunatics. They must have no social life if they have to fill their hours that way. They must be emotional cripples to have to trust an unseen God to take care of them.” Let the fools talk, saying whatever they like. There isn’t anything with which you could reply which will keep them quiet. In fact, if you try to answer them, they will probably just get louder and more obnoxious. Let your godly life be your answer, and don’t worry about what they might do to your reputation. God will justify you.

On the other hand, in some ways, your reputation is an extremely valuable asset, to be protected and guarded. There may be nothing that you can do against the slander of the enemy, but be aware that you can destroy your testimony and reputation yourself. Several weeks ago, I read about a church in the Houston area, with a unique approach to evangelism. I thought about putting a note about it in the bulletin, but decided against it. In an effort to bring Christ to some of the more unreachable people of the area, that church has forged a relationship with the local Hooters Restaurant, holding church-related functions in their building. Having never been inside a Hooters, I looked it up on Wikipedia Friday to verify my fears. No, Hooters not a pet store. It’s a gourmet hamburger restaurant whose waitresses are hired and exploited for their physical attributes. There may be more obscene and wicked places in the world, but I still don’t believe that my reputation would recover very quickly, if I was seen going into such a place. It may not be the same thing as a strip joint, but the differences are only cosmetic and lightly clothed. I have a duty to my reputation – my good – not to turn it to evil by frequenting such a place as Hooters.

What are some of the ways that our good reputation can be seen as less than perfect? Obviously, when our liberty is used to hurt others. This was Paul’s thought when he made the statement. Our good can be evil spoken of, when we lay undue stress on trifles. When God hasn’t forbidden something, then we need to be sure that there are Bible principles sufficient before we start publically condemning it. Take tobacco for example: The Bible never says a word about tobacco, and so we can’t condemn it directly. But it is a Biblical principle that Christians are obligated to take the best possible care of their physical bodies in order to maintain the “temple of God.” There is no doubt whatsoever that to put tobacco into your body is to ingest poison. It should be absolutely condemned for the children of God. But what happens when we tell the lost man that God condemns his smoking or chewing tobacco? The fact is, the Lord doesn’t really condemn it for him. When we make a big deal about cigarettes before the lost, we may do more harm than good by derailing the presentation of the gospel to him. Our good can be evil spoken of, when we over-emphasize, or mis-emphasize certain things. And our good can be evil spoken of, when that good is nothing but being sanctimonious. Make sure that your godly reputation is genuine and not merely an hypocritical sham. Our good will be besmeared when we become known as constantly censorious. God doesn’t need any more censors. When a child, someone lacking tact because of inexperience, tells the smoker that he stinks, it may be funny, embarrassing and true. But when you tell that lost man that he stinks, even though he does, you may have cast a stumbling block between him and the gospel.

Our good may be evil spoken of, when we forcefully demonstrate our ignorance. Take the subject of creation for example. We should be as dogmatic as Moses coming off the mountain, about Genesis 1. But to argue with a PhD. about the intricacies of nuclear physics, may not do either of us any good. Sometimes our levity may do our reputations harm. I am as guilty as the next person in this regard, maybe even more so. Sometimes rather than making that funny comment, we need to keep it to ourselves. “If thy brother be grieved with thy levity, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy joke, for whom Christ died.” On the other hand, to be morose can be just as deleterious to our testimony as off-colored laughter. When it comes to sin, be as sad and serious as you can be. When it comes to the blessings of God, His providence, His grace, be as joyful as possible. We need to convey to the world that our Saviour is worth our service and worship. As generally defined, a sad Christian is a spiritual anomaly. A man that is all laugher counts for little, but the man who is all groans is worth even less.

And remember that your good can be considered evil, even by other saints of God. Paul spends considerable time encouraging unity within the churches that he ministered. We will have differing opinions with our brethren in many areas. But it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that in areas where the Bible is not clear, to be lenient towards one another. “For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and (therefore he should be) approved of (the brethren as well).”