A Conviction Against Convictions/

Perhaps the most prolific non-biblical concepts in Christianity today is the so-called “conviction.”

Although, I assume that everyone knows what I mean by this, I will explain it a bit. A “conviction” is a personal belief that God does not want you to do something which is not necessarily wrong in itself, not wrong for others to do, nor forbidden in Scripture.

It is my opinion that “convictions” are the biggest crock even imported into Christianity. As I have observed and evaluated people’s so-called “convictions,” I find them to be little more than a not-so-subtle form of will-worship that fosters self-righteousness and judgmentalism.

In the first place, I am not aware of anyone having a “conviction” against doing something they actually liked. This in itself is highly suspicious. I remember a woman who had an unreasonably strong “conviction” about listening to Christian rock music. The crazy thing was, she hated rock music of any variety even before she was a Christian. She had simply found a way to baptize her personal taste and use it as a way to magnify herself in her own mind. She was more holy and spiritual than these worldly bums at church simply because she had decided that her personal taste was holier than theirs. Frankly, I can’t understand how anyone in the world could enjoy Country Western music; I do not however, assume that this is a great spiritual quality about me which shows my Christian maturity over other believers. That seems as ridiculous as deciding that 7-Up is holier than Sprite.

The drinking of alcoholic beverages is probably the most common subject of these so-called “convictions.” And even there, I have yet to meet someone with this “conviction” who would actually drink if it weren’t for this “conviction.” The “conviction” assumes that something is sinful for you, but how can this be? Where do we find in Scripture the idea that something may be sinful for one person, but acceptable for someone else? Even the people who advocate abstaining from alcoholic beverages realize that although Scripture prohibits drunkenness, it does not actually prohibit drinking a beverage that contains alcohol. Personally, I do not drink, but that is because I can’t get past the smell. When I hear someone recount their “conviction” about drinking alcohol, it is always cast in language that suggests their spiritually maturity and superiority over those who indulge in their “freedom.”

What is this but the Pharisee’s prayer revisited? Paul declares, “Why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? (1 Cor. 10:29).

This is an example of the “apparent wisdom” Paul speaks of in Colossians 2:23, which does not restrain sin. Indeed it begets pride and self-righteousness. Once you think that there is something you do that makes you to differ from another, you are in serious trouble (1 Cor. 4:7).

The Liberty of a Christian's Conscience

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) -- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Colossians 2:20-22

One of the things Luther and the other Reformers protested was the Roman invention of extra-biblical disciplines and “spiritual” acts. The reason for the protestation was that Rome was binding the consciences of Christians to things not commanded in Scripture. This is similar to Christ’s remark to the Pharisees that they were making traditions more binding than the commandments of God.

Examples of this man-made Romish righteousness would be the prohibition of meat on Fridays, Lenten self-denial, auricular confession, making the sign of the cross, the veneration of images, ad nauseum. It is sinful for the church make people feel that they have violated their consciences by neglected to do these things because Scripture commands none of them, and actually prohibits most of them. This is what our passage refers to when it mentions the man-made commands “do not handle; do not taste; do not touch.”

Included in this also would be the apparent commonsense behind acts like the Pharisaical hand-washing. Certainly, it is wise and healthful to wash one’s hands before eating, but turning this into some sort of moral obligation is merely another form of will-worship – binding a Christian’s conscience to something Scripture neither prescribes nor proscribes. There is also the Mormon abstention from caffeine and Adventist vegetarianism.

Many people have spent a lot of time studying the Old Testament Jewish dietary laws and millions of claims have been made as to the supposed heath benefits of following this diet. It is therefore, erroneously concluded that this is why God enforced this dietary code. This is dangerous for a couple of reasons. First it contradicts Mark 7:19. Secondly, it creates a serious conundrum: If God prohibited the eating of certain foods merely for health reasons (and it is actually not health to eat these foods) then isn’t it sinful to eat these things? Yet this runs directly counter to all that we have already seen. If Christ declared all food clean, then who are we to pretend to be smarter than God?

Thirdly, it misses the point of the dietary laws. The dietary code was part of a whole system of laws and restrictions, the purpose of which was to set Israel apart as holy. Israel was set apart, holy unto God. The way in which they were marked out as different from the other nations of the earth was through such practices.

For instance, when God commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath, this made them different from all the nations of the Gentiles. The Old Testament is replete with “holy” things, from oil to lamps to incense to bells and clothes… all of which were forbidden for personal use. By “holy,” these inanimate objects were strictly set apart for use in the worship of God. That is the point of the dietary law: it made Israel different from the nations, i.e., it distinguished between the holy and unholy (Lev. 10:10).

We can all laugh at such religious legalism as Popish restrictions about meat and marriage or Mormon abstention from coffee and pop. But many Evangelicals are as guilty of such behavior. I have interacted with “Holiness Pentecostal” people and have seen egregious examples of such behavior. I have heard sermons against shaving and sermons against not shaving (Jesus saves and Jesus shaves). I have heard sermons against women wearing pants. Many holiness Pentecostal preachers would preach the wedding ring off your finger. I once heard a preacher virtually declare roller-skating to be the unpardonable sin.

Then, of course, there is the ‘higher life’ teaching of the Keswick movement. By placing excessive emphasis on death to self and personal sanctification, an upside down version of the Christian life is created whereby one’s justification is judged by one’s attainments in holiness. Instead of justification by grace, it becomes justification by sanctification. The Wesleyan preachers who thought they had discovered some new truth about the Christian life were much mistaken because this is nothing more than medieval Catholic mysticism in Wesleyan and Pentecostal garb.

Let me reiterate: Scripture alone is the rule of Christian doctrine and practice. Wherever Scripture does not provide a clear prescription or proscription, we should tread lightly. A Christian should never be made to feel guilty for doing or not doing things not taught in Scripture.

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

1 Corinthians 10:29b For why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?

Doctrine Precedes Application

One of the trademarks of sloppy work as a preacher is the mad dash to application before the doctrine of the passage has been discussed.

It is not uncommon to hear a sermon that is nothing but moral application with no theology at all. Those familiar with theological jargon will recognize the terms doctrinal theology and practical theology. The terms are self-explanatory. The thing a minister must always keep in mind is that the practical theology rests upon the doctrinal theology and not the other way around. Nor can one discard the doctrinal theology and just go for the practical application.

Scripture presents a model in the balance seen in the New Testament Epistles. Most of the Epistles can be split right down the middle. The first half is pure doctrine; the second half is the practical application of this doctrine.

This is why it is ignorant for a preacher to jump right into a sermon on Romans 12:1-2 without having established the same theological groundwork Paul did in his Epistle. Paul spent 11 chapters delineating some complex theological truths before he started Chapter 12. After all, the first work of the chapter is, "Therefore."

Moreover, many times the application that Scripture presents based on the doctrines established is not so much a list of rules, but rather the natural results in a believer's life once he has understood this or that doctrine.

Without this preparatory work, sermons end up becoming lessons in pietistic legalism - Wesleyan perfectionism of the worst kind. The order is "justification by faith," not "justification by sanctification." Christians will generally agree that we are saved by grace (what they mean by this formula is another story, perhaps), but many get tripped up on whether salvation is maintained by grace as well. In other words: Can grace save a Christian?

Much of this shoddy theological work has its roots in Wesleyanism and has passed on to the rest of the Christian world through movements such as the Keswick Movement (aka - Higher Life). The results have been thousands of Christians who feel absolutely defeated and hopeless. They are fed a steady stream of do's and don'ts and are disillusioned when they find it isn't as easy as all that. We are Christians, first and foremost, because of what we believe. A person who does not adhere to the primary doctrines of the Christian faith is no Christian at all. Without the proper doctrinal framework, all the Christian conduct in the world means nothing.