DRAFT ONLY

Introduction
      From 14:1-15:13, Paul deals with the issue of Christian liberty. In 14:13-23 he presents the manner in which Christian liberty is to be used by the "strong" in their fellowship with the "weak".

The passage
      v13. Paul begins by summing up his argument from the preceding passage. Both the "weak" (law-bound believers) and the "strong" (free-from-the-law believers) are not to judge each other. He now turns his attention to the "strong" and sets out to encourage them to be careful how they apply their liberty such that it does not harm the "weak".
      v14. Paul is persuaded by the words of Jesus himself (Mk.7:15-23, Mt.15:10-11, 15-20) that the Old Testament law no longer applies to a believer. It could never make holy, and only serves to expose sin and thus drive us to seek mercy from God. Christ has fulfilled the law through his perfection, and so through faith in Christ the believer shares his holiness. Matters of ritual cleanliness are therefore now irrelevant. Yet for the believer who still regards law-keeping as an essential element of their Christian walk, even breaking the minutia of the law (ritual, sacrificial, food....) is for them destructive of their faith. It is sin to willfully oppose what we believe is good.
      v15. We do not show love to a brother when we undermine their faith by making an issue out of what is ultimately irrelevant.
      v16. It is wrong to apply the freedom possessed through the gospel (God's gift of righteousness in Christ through faith) such that the gospel ends up being undermined in the eyes of the "weak", who then revert to legalism and inevitably find themselves without faith.
      v17. Christ's "Kingdom is not of this world". It is a spiritual reality expressed in such things as the gift of righteousness possessed in Christ, a new relationship with God (reconciliation), and joy experienced through the presence of the indwelling Spirit of Christ. The Kingdom certainly has nothing to do with matters of religious form.
      v18. The person who possess the Kingdom spiritually (in "righteousness, peace and joy"), and doesn't impose their will on matters of outward form, is the one who pleases God and deserves the approval of others.
      v19. So therefore, in our Christian community we should act in a way that maintains fellowship and builds up others.
      v20. Don't destroy the renewing work of the Spirit in the "weak" believer, by making an issue out of matters of religious form. A believer is indeed free from the law in Christ, but if our freedom undermines the faith of a weaker brother, then our behaviour is wrong. "All food is clean" is probably a commonly used slogan affirming liberty in Christ.
      v21. Paul here affirms the positive good in the unselfish course which considers the welfare of a weaker brother. The reference to abstaining from wine is most likely a hypothetical example of piety - law obedience.
      v22. A believer who is freed from scruples, should retain that liberty to their own person rather than make it a burden on others. Blessed is the believer who does not insist on their liberty at the expense of another.
      v23. The danger always remains that the liberty of one can lead another to act against their conscience. If their conscience does not give them the liberty to act in a particular way, then to act that way is sin.

The load of liberty
      A young Anglican student minister was arguing strongly against the use of robes, Prayer Book and all the other paraphernalia of Anglican form. His argument was that to cling to such things was legalism. Demanding the retention of ritual and form, was to be bound by the burden of legalistic piety. A believer in such a condition needed to experience the liberty of Christ. They were the "weak" and needed to become the "strong".
      It was an interesting argument, but if his comparison was true, then his demand for change in worship form was in direct contradiction to the command of Christ. If he had rightly come to understand that worship form was irrelevant to the Kingdom of God, then to demand his liberty at the cost of offending the piety of others, was to "condemn himself by what he approves", v22. If it is right to describe the worship form of the Anglican church as liturgical, and if there are many other churches around who provide alternate less formal forms of worship, then it is an abuse of liberty for a minister to seek to impose a "Methodist" etc. form on a group of believers who are committed to a liturgical form. It is a very offensive act and certainly would not "lead to peace and mutual edification." To demand ones freedom at the expense of the religious sensibilities of others is to "no longer act in love."
      Of course, the very act of demanding a change in worship form undermines the notion that form is irrelevant. It denies the claim "all food is clean" - ie. worship style is neutral to the gospel. The claim that one worship style is superior to another denies the notion that the Kingdom of God, which is not of this world, is realized "not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord God Almighty". To give weight to religious form is to join the "weak".