# Eating food sacrificed to idols



## Caroline (Nov 1, 2012)

I encountered an incident today that was very much a situation like eating food sacrificed to idols (I Cor 8), in that it was something that for some people does no harm, and to others is contrary to conscience. In this case, I regret that I was wrong--I inadvertently said something that offended a weaker brother, and as soon as the words had left my mouth, I would like to have grabbed them back out of the air, but could not. The reprimand I received was well deserved, even though I still believe (and I think most Reformed people would agree) that it is a matter of Christian liberty.

I specifically don't name the issue itself because I don't want to start an argument about something that is a little controversial among Christians when my point is elsewhere. I wondered where we draw the line between setting people free of the bondage of legalism vs. respecting the weaker brother? In this case, I was clearly wrong to offend a weaker brother, but there are times that it is less clear and difficult to know how to respond to someone who is easily offended.

For example, when I was in the UPCI, I was taught to never wear pants or shorts, but only skirts so that I would not cause men to stumble by showing off my legs. If anyone challenged that, they were often reprimanded with I Cor 8, and people would say, "If even one man stumbles because of you wearing pants, isn't that enough reason to wear skirts all the time?"

But then, there is no end to that. Soon, we were not permitted to wear open-toed shoes because some men are attracted to pretty feet. (My feet are not and never have been pretty, so I'm not sure how I got caught in that one). And then we had to wear scarves to cover our hair. And then I was told to walk behind men, not in front of them. And with everything, it was, "Well, why would you want to cause your brother to stumble?"

Similarly with a lot of other things. Another church outlawed frogs of all kinds (as pets or as decoration or even books about them) because the pastor thought frogs looked demonic, and why would you cause anyone to think about demons?

Obviously those are extreme, and I mention them only because... well, they are so extreme that they make the point. If you try not to offend anyone ever, you can end up in slavery to everyone else's whims. They can decide that cheese makes them feel angry, and why would you make them angry? No cheese for you! And eventually what you end up with is a few irritable people holding sway over everyone else by claiming that everything they don't like offends them.

So obviously, there's a point at which you have to say, "Well, that issue with cheese sounds like a personal problem. Perhaps you should pray that God will help you overcome your anger problem, my friend."

But then, it is possible to take it to the other extreme and say, "I don't care what offends my brother. I will do what I like, and he will have to deal with it!" And that is wrong also.

So where is the line? How do you decide which weaknesses to accommodate and which to challenge?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 1, 2012)

This is only a partial answer, but critical to realize is that there is a difference between how we use "offend" and what it often means in Scripture. In Scripture, "offending" is _causing to stumble_; enticing or emboldening someone to go against their conscience, not doing something they don't like or being aggravating. 
So the question about not angering people really falls more under the rubric of living in peace with all men as much as lies in us. But the fact that someone is annoyed with me for listening to opera because they feel it's sin is not at all the same thing as my example emboldening them to listen to opera even though their conscience troubles them for it.


----------



## KMK (Nov 1, 2012)

py3ak said:


> But the fact that someone is annoyed with me for listening to opera because they feel it's sin is not at all the same thing as my example emboldening them to listen to opera even though their conscience troubles them for it.



SMACK! (That's the sound of a hammer hitting a nail on the head.)

As far as 'setting people free from the bondage of legalism', I think it is good to keep in mind that the emphasis of Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8 is 'receiving a weaker brother, but not to dissimulation.' Paul tells us to love them by avoiding offense, not by setting them free from bondage. In general, I would advise people to let the HS work on them through their pastors and elders.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 1, 2012)

I was thinking about this the other day. I do try (probably very unsuccessfully) to avoid annoying people in the things they are particular about because I love them and I feel it's one of the small things I can do for them and that being annoyed is probably a stumbling it would be nicer for them not to have to deal with; but annoyance avoidance is not always possible or wise. Love however, will always try to stoop down and remove those objects in the way that might make the weaker among us truly stumble -- Love bears the other's burden as much as it can. And it is a joy to be stronger if it enables us to do that. It's not something that can be reduced to what would be such helpful rules I think, though; and that is what I was thinking the other day. It wouldn't be so beautiful a mutual response to one another in us if it were not an area God had left, after giving us sufficient rules to give us a vision of the law of love, to the freedom of our own love aching to help each other.


----------



## JP Wallace (Nov 1, 2012)

Hear ye Ruben! I preached on 1 Cor. 8 last Sabbath - it's not about offending but of causing or encouraging someone to engage in an activity which they still think is sinful (through weakness of conscience), in which case it is sin to them and causes them to stumble and be 'destroyed' i.e. spiritually hampered or harmed. 

If it is a matter on which God has not clearly spoken, it is his job not to be offended nor castigate you for excercising your freedom. 

Likewise we would be better voluntarily giving up our liberties and rights to ensure we don't draw a brother to sin (see 1 Cor 18:13).


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 1, 2012)

Caroline said:


> But then, there is no end to that. Soon, we were not permitted to wear open-toed shoes because some men are attracted to pretty feet. (My feet are not and never have been pretty, so I'm not sure how I got caught in that one). And then we had to wear scarves to cover our hair. And then I was told to walk behind men, not in front of them. And with everything, it was, "Well, why would you want to cause your brother to stumble?"
> 
> Similarly with a lot of other things. Another church outlawed frogs of all kinds (as pets or as decoration or even books about them) because the pastor thought frogs looked demonic, and why would you cause anyone to think about demons?



I was wondering (thinking further about this, for this is an example where the weak really are apparently stumbling) if a strong person refuses to give in when there is a gospel principle at stake, and if a gospel principle would be at stake where the weak have come to simply assume that their consciences ought to be the rule for all?

For it seems that the arena of 'freedom of conscience' in which to practice that sacrificial mutual love is then destroyed (and there may be other ramifications) -- it's become a matter of legislation, and as Caroline pointed out, the weak who are by definition not fitted for such a position, have become the legislators for the whole body.

I do think love is going to be sacrificial by nature always; perhaps especially in this area. But it seems like there are things that ought not to be sacrificed.


----------



## chuckd (Nov 1, 2012)

a mere housewife said:


> Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > But then, there is no end to that. Soon, we were not permitted to wear open-toed shoes because some men are attracted to pretty feet. (My feet are not and never have been pretty, so I'm not sure how I got caught in that one). And then we had to wear scarves to cover our hair. And then I was told to walk behind men, not in front of them. And with everything, it was, "Well, why would you want to cause your brother to stumble?"
> ...



A relevant quote from Calvin is in order (Inst. 4.12.13):
_One thing Augustine specially commends—viz. that if the contagion of sin has seized the multitude, mercy must accompany living discipline. “For counsels of separation are vain, sacrilegious, and pernicious, because impious and proud, and do more to disturb the weak good than to correct the wicked proud” (August. Ep. 64). This which he enjoins on others he himself faithfully practiced. For, writing to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, he complains that drunkenness, which is so severely condemned in Scripture, prevails in Africa with impunity, and advises a council of bishops to be called for the purpose of providing a remedy. He immediately adds, “In my opinion, such things are not removed by rough, harsh, and imperious measures, but more by teaching than commanding, more by admonishing than threatening. For thus ought we to act with a multitude of offenders. Severity is to be exercised against the sins of a few” (August. Ep. 64). He does not mean, however, that the bishops were to wink or be silent because they are unable to punish public offences severely, as he himself afterwards explains. But he wishes to temper the mode of correction, so as to give soundness to the body rather than cause destruction. And, accordingly, he thus concludes: “Wherefore, we must on no account neglect the injunction of the apostle, to separate from the wicked, when it can be done without the risk of violating peace, because he did not wish it to be done otherwise (1 Cor. 5:13); we must also endeavour, by bearing with each other, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:2)._


----------



## py3ak (Nov 1, 2012)

B.B. Warfield gives a good explanation of Romans 14:1 - _Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to determination of disputes_. In other words, the fact that someone is weak in conscience doesn't meant we regard him as an unbeliever, or view him with scorn, hostility, disdain, or despite: on the contrary, we are to receive such gladly, unstintingly, delightedly, accommodatingly; _but not as judges_. They are not the ones set up to resolve cases of conscience; they are not the ones determining the standards. Their weakness is no hindrance to their warm reception into our midst; it is definitely an hindrance to them becoming arbiters. 

On that basis, it seems fair to say that when someone under color of weakness begins to be tyrannical, to employ emotional terrorism as a way to control or manipulate others, it is right to resist them.


----------



## Caroline (Nov 3, 2012)

Thanks for the responses. I have been thinking about it...

The reprimand in my own case came from the person I would describe as a 'weak brother,' not from church leadership of any kind, who if they had been compelled to take a side, would certainly have taken mine. But I regretted that I had brought up a touchy subject, as it were, and offended a weak person, and in that sense, I did not blame the weak brother for objecting.

But I cannot bring myself to regret acting as I did, only for bringing it to the attention of someone that I should have known would object. Is is okay to 'eat meat sacrificed to idols' on one's own time, so to speak, but not in the presence of someone of weak conscience? In some ways, it feels dishonest, but then, to do anything else seems like it would be bowing to the tyranny of legalism.

For example (and this was not the incident, but something similar)...

Suppose a person from a very conservative culture joined our church and objected strenuously to girls wearing open-toed shoes. It is possible that I might instruct my daughter not to wear sandals to church anymore so as not to offend Herbert, Our Shoe-Inspecting Brother. But then, I don't think I would extend that to home and school and elsewhere. And it seems like it would be wrong to say to my daughter, "You may not wear sandals ever again, even to the beach, because Herbert doesn't like sandals", when clearly, sandals are not a sin, and Herbert is over-reacting.

Herbert might say, however, that we were being dishonest by acting one way when he was there and another way when he is not there, and that it is a form of hypocrisy. But it seems like that sort of thing is unavoidable. There are a lot of things that I don't bring up just because I don't want to stir the pot, and that seems like it is just a fact of living amongst other human beings.

It is an interesting differentiation to say that it only applies if it tempts another person to act against their conscience. So I suppose that, in theory, people who are weak in conscience on a particular issue only have the right to object if it presents a real temptation to them. If Herbert, when he sees my daughter wearing sandals, feels pressured to allow his own daughters to wear sandals and he thinks that is wrong--then this is a 'eating meat sacrificed to idols situation', but he cannot expect others to change just because the sandals thing offends him? Is that about right?

Thanks


----------



## JP Wallace (Nov 3, 2012)

Caroline said:


> If Herbert, when he sees my daughter wearing sandals, feels pressured to allow his own daughters to wear sandals and he thinks that is wrong--then this is a 'eating meat sacrificed to idols situation', but he cannot expect others to change just because the sandals thing offends him? Is that about right



I'd say that's about right!


----------

