# Offending the Believer



## heartoflesh (Apr 18, 2008)

I heard a John MacArthur broadcast a couple of weeks ago where he gave his explanation of 1 Cor. 8, in that if a believer was asked to meat sacrificed to idols in the presence of an unbeliever, he should go ahead and eat. If, however, a believer was present who would be offended, he should not eat.

His bottom line was "if it comes down to offending the unbeliever or the believer, offend the unbeliever"

I was thinking about this in the context of a situational ethics scenario I've heard presented before. It goes like this...

"If I am out to dinner with some fellow Christians and the waitress comes up to us and asks if we would like to see the beer menu, and one of my companions says 'we're Christians, we don't drink', then I would be compelled, for the gospel's sake, to order a beer!"


I've always agreed with this conclusion, but I'm wondering if it goes against MacArthur's "offend the unbeliever, not the believer" train of thought?


----------



## Hippo (Apr 18, 2008)

Rick Larson said:


> I heard a John MacArthur broadcast a couple of weeks ago where he gave his explanation of 1 Cor. 8, in that if a believer was asked to meat sacrificed to idols in the presence of an unbeliever, he should go ahead and eat. If, however, a believer was present who would be offended, he should not eat.
> 
> His bottom line was "if it comes down to offending the unbeliever or the believer, offend the unbeliever"
> 
> ...




I do not understand this scenario, it is the companion who is the believer and it is him who you would offend by drinking therefore according to MacArthur you should worry about offending your brother and probably not drink.

If in this scenario it was the waitress who said that Christians should not drink (and was not a believer herself) then the Chritian society of frothblowers should just get the drinks in. 

I must say I agree with MacArther here, the Church (and hence Christians) should not worry what the world thinks if we are doing what is right, we do however have a responsibility to our brothers and sisters. 

If a brother thinks that we are acting sinfully then our first recourse should NEVER be to jump straight to Christian liberty, no matter how confident we are we should take steps to consider our position (with the input of the church) and our normal course of action should always be not to offend the brother. If after reflection we have Christian liberty in that area then next time we should go to dinner without the offended brother, we should never hide what we do but neither do we have a principal of being able to offend our brothers as a right (I am not saying that anyone here is suggesting this course of action).

If a servant of Satan does not like what we do then to be honest that is tough, as long as we are treating him as we would wish to be treated ourselves there is not a problem.


----------



## KMK (Apr 18, 2008)

I do not disagree with any of these responses. But where does 1 Cor 8 or Rom 14 teach that we should be watchful that we do not 'offend' or place a stumblingblock in the path of the unbeliever? Our Christianity necessarily 'offends' the unbeliever.



> Matt 11:6 And blessed is [he], whosoever shall not be offended in me.



You are either blessed by Christ or offended by Christ. Why should I have any concern over whether I offend an unbeliever? It is expected.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 18, 2008)

> I do not understand this scenario, it is the companion who is the believer and it is him who you would offend by drinking therefore according to MacArthur you should worry about offending your brother and probably not drink.



Yes, that's what I'm getting at, whether this would be the correct assumption to make. But I do see Joshua's point, that when being the weaker brother turns into forcing one's conviction upon others, a line needs to be drawn.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 18, 2008)

> I do not disagree with any of these responses. But where does 1 Cor 8 or Rom 14 teach that we should be watchful that we do not 'offend' or place a stumblingblock in the path of the unbeliever? Our Christianity necessarily 'offends' the unbeliever.



I only based this on MacArthur's comment that "if it comes down to offending an unbeliever or a believer, it is better to offend the unbeliever".


----------



## KMK (Apr 18, 2008)

Rick Larson said:


> > I do not understand this scenario, it is the companion who is the believer and it is him who you would offend by drinking therefore according to MacArthur you should worry about offending your brother and probably not drink.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what I'm getting at, whether this would be the correct assumption to make. But I do see Joshua's point, that when being the weaker brother turns into forcing one's conviction upon others, a line needs to be drawn.



Indeed! And the weaker brother is specifically instructed not to do so!



> Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.



The problem is, everyone assumes himself to be the stronger brother!


----------



## Hippo (Apr 18, 2008)

joshua said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is, everyone assumes himself to be the stronger brother!
> ...



If only things were always this obvious.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 18, 2008)

joshua said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is, everyone assumes himself to be the stronger brother!
> ...



The strange thing is I was reading 1 Cor 8 and 9 this morning/afternoon and wondered to myself: "If Paul was around today, doubtless some PB members would complain about his 'situational ethics', saying that it's okay to eat meat in some circumstances but not in others" - maybe I have a warped mind? 

One question Josh: Is there any such thing as "things indifferent", surely the decision whether or not to eat meat/drink alcohol or abstain from these things is a choice between two ethically righteous decisions? It only becomes an unrighteous decision if it involves offending a weaker brother?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 18, 2008)

KMK said:


> The problem is, everyone assumes himself to be the stronger brother!



Especially the ones with the big muscles.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 18, 2008)

joshua said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > One question Josh: Is there any such thing as "things indifferent", surely the decision whether or not to eat meat/drink alcohol or abstain from these things is a choice between two ethically righteous decisions? It only becomes an unrighteous decision if it involves offending a weaker brother?
> ...



Cheese dip is something good according to 1 Tim. 4 (that is, by good and necessary consequence)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 18, 2008)

joshua said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



In that case it is a sinful abuse of something good. Wine is the gift of God (i.e. something good), but the abuse of wine is sin.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 18, 2008)

joshua said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



Fair enough.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 18, 2008)

joshua said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



Is this a veiled confession, pal?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 18, 2008)

joshua said:


> Daniel, maybe this will give you a better understanding of my understanding (or maybe lack thereof) concerning Christian Liberty:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/hypocrites-concerning-matters-liberty-18530/



That was a great post; the only slight modification I would make is that I view Romans 14 as referring to small matters "doubtful things", rather than (strictly speaking) indifferent ones. But this is probably more a difference of semantics rather than of substance. Nonetheless, that was a good piece of work.


----------



## KMK (Apr 18, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel, maybe this will give you a better understanding of my understanding (or maybe lack thereof) concerning Christian Liberty:
> ...



Could you elaborate on your view of 'doubtful things'?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 18, 2008)

When ever I consider this matter of liberty and conscience, I am invariably reminded of this passage:

From Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes



> WE ARE DEBTORS TO THE WEAK
> 
> In the last place, there is something for private Christians, even for all of us in our common relations, to take notice of: we are debtors to the weak in many things.
> 
> ...



Wise counsel from a master teacher.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 18, 2008)

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



I believe these are small matters of conscience and dispute among believers which Christians should not fight over; it is interesting that even though Paul was an apostle, he recognised that some things were "doubtful", how much more then should we be less quick to judge those for whom Christ has died?


----------



## py3ak (Apr 18, 2008)

Rick, to answer the question in the OP, I think that the waitress situation is _not_ actually a clear decision between offending an unbeliever or a believer. Why would an unbeliever be offended because "Christians don't drink"? So I don't think that MacArthur's dictum is really relevant to that situation.

When you have a waitress being given a false witness that "Christians don't drink" you have one situation. There the question is of bearing an inaccurate witness to the Gospel, versus offending a fellow believer. So I think it has to be settled on its own grounds.

Of course none of that gives any useful information about, or even expresses an opinion as to the usefulness of, MacArthur's dictum. I think in so far as it expresses the principle that we are to do good to all men but _especially_ those who are of the household of faith it might be a handy rule of thumb. But it is hard for me to think of situations where I _must_ offend either believer or unbeliever, and there is no unreasonableness on either side.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 18, 2008)

What I think was said on the White Horse Inn (regarding ordering the beer) was specifically this:

If you are in a restaurant, and the waitress asks the folks next to you "do you want drinks" *and they respond: "NO WAY! WE'RE CHRISTIANS!,"* Mike (or whomever it was) would be practically obligated, when the lady stops there and asks the same question, *to say just as clearly and publicly as the Galatian heresy was just proclaimed by the other table:* "YES MA'AM! I WILL HAVE A BEER, BECAUSE I'M A CHRISTIAN!"

For the issue in that case isn't about "offending" people. "Offending people" as Paul means it has to do with leading them into sin by persuading a weak conscience to act against conviction. Horton's point is that sometimes we have an obligation to defend the purity of the gospel from arrogant legalists who are adding to the Gospel, adding to what it means to "be a Christian."

The PERSON we are to be MOST concerned with in that scenario is the _unsaved waitress_ who is put in more peril by the Galatian heresy of the next table over than she is of the sin of insobriety (drunkenness) from the "free" Christians.


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2008)

1 Cor. 10:32, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." The conscience both of believers and unbelievers is to be considered.

In Rom. 14, the issue is not things indifferent or small matters, but things which God had commanded and are now under the new economy no longer binding.

The weaker brother is one who is considered weaker by those who believe they have faith to do things which other brethren cannot do in good conscience. If a brother really has the strong faith which he claims, then he should be able to enjoy his liberty with a good conscience before God without having to justify his actions before men (something in fact which is rarely done). At the same time, he should be able to forego the pursuit of his liberty in the interests of serving those who have scruples about such matters (which is even more scarce than the former).

A Christian does not glory in his liberty or self-denial, but in Christ Jesus, who is the measure of perfection.


----------



## KMK (Apr 19, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> In Rom. 14, the issue is not things indifferent or small matters, but things which God had commanded and are now under the new economy no longer binding.



This is my understanding of 'skandalizo' and 'proskomma' as well.

Could this be stretched to include things, in this NT age, which a weaker brother _thought _were commanded by God, but in fact never were? (Like abstaining from alcohol)


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 19, 2008)

There is a difference between giving offense and taking offense. Some take offense when none is given.


----------



## MW (Apr 20, 2008)

KMK said:


> Could this be stretched to include things, in this NT age, which a weaker brother _thought _were commanded by God, but in fact never were? (Like abstaining from alcohol)



Col. 2 is more appropriate in this context -- the doctrines and commandments of men. It is likely that the misunderstanding arises from a fundamentalist approach to ethics. It is not that they believe God says, "Thou shalt not," but their separatist worldview is imposed on the Scriptures to infer extra-biblical precepts. Please note -- this statement only applies to those who make certain observances a matter of law, not to those who believe it is a principle of wisdom to abstain from certain actions which have become dangerous because of their prevalent abuse in society.


----------



## KMK (Apr 20, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Could this be stretched to include things, in this NT age, which a weaker brother _thought _were commanded by God, but in fact never were? (Like abstaining from alcohol)
> ...



A double thank you for this bit of wisdom, Rev Winzer! Col 2 is definitely more appropriate.


----------

