A classic example of a stumbling block issue would be
drinking alcohol. If a Christian drinks in front of a fellow-believer who
thinks alcohol consumption is wrong or if he tries to get the friend to drink,
it could cause the person to go against his conscience and sin. In other words,
it could cause him to stumble.
Not all issues are so easily decided. How do we determine
when we are dealing with a stumbling block issue or not? Here are a number of observations derived
from the two main stumbling block passages that I trust will lead us toward an
answer.
1. Not all issues or disagreements among
Christians in a congregation can be classified as stumbling block matters.
Beginning in Cor. 7:1 Paul writes to the Corinthians of “the matters about
which you wrote” (7:1). In other words, these are matters that troubled the
Corinthians and they wanted to get Paul’s take on them. Of all the matters Paul
addresses in this section (being married or not being married, ch. 7; food
related to idol/temple worship, 8-10; head coverings, 11:2-16; the Lord’s
Supper, 11:17-34; “spirituals” or “spiritual things” [extraordinary spiritual
activities, including spiritual gifts], 12:1-14:40; and the resurrection,
15:1-58), there is only one that constitutes a stumbling block issue. In all
the others Paul clearly comes down upon a particular side. For example, in
regard to whether or not Christians should marry (ch. 7), Paul is clear that
though there is the freedom not to marry (if God has gifted and/or called a
person to such a single lifestyle), most should marry because of sexual sin.
So, Paul does not say, “Hey, if you have people in your church who don’t think
any Christian should marry, don’t allow anyone to marry—after all you don’t
want to be a stumbling block.” No, Paul is clear that though some may not want
to marry, marriage is good and, in many cases, it is the wisest step for
Christians to take. Likewise, he doesn’t leave it up to the Corinthians to
decide whether or not they practice “spirituals” or spiritual gifts in a way
that trumps love for one another and God’s Word (12-14); nor does he leave it
up to them whether or not they believe in the resurrection (15).[1]
2. Even in stumbling block issues there tends
to be a stronger (more defensible) and weaker (less defensible) position,
which appears to be why Paul uses “weak” to refer to the person prohibiting the
activity (e.g. 1 Cor. 8:11). The issue in Romans 14 appears to be that of
Jewish food and Sabbath laws, and whether or not Christians (Jewish or Gentile)
must keep them.[2] The issue in 1 Corinthians 8-10 appears to
revolve around the eating of meat related to pagan temples and idol worship.
The pagan temples in many first century, A.D., Greco-Roman cities also served
as the local butcher. Once meat was sacrificed to pagan gods it would be sold
for food. Because of this, many guilds and groups of people would have feasts
and get-togethers at pagan temples. Additionally, this meat would also be sold
so it could be eaten off-site. In 1 Cor. 8 Paul appears to be addressing the
issue of eating at the temples (8:10) and in 1 Cor. 10 eating meat sold at the
temple, but eaten off-site (10:25, 28). In both situations, Paul makes it clear
that bottom-line there is nothing unethical in and of itself about eating the
food some were prohibiting in Rome (Rom. 14:14a) or the meat related to the
pagan temples and idols in Corinth (1 Cor. 8:4-6).[3]
3. Because of #2, it appears that Paul felt the
freedom to state that in the given issue there was a stronger and weaker
position, which implies that discussions could take place among the Christians that
may lead to a weaker brother leaving behind his conviction that a particular
activity was unethical. So, even in situations in which Christian leaders
must be adamant that stronger brothers give up freedoms for weaker brothers, at
one and the same time, they can teach weaker brothers with the goal of helping
them see that the particular activity is not wrong. This teaching must be done
with great care, however. It must be careful to allow God’s Spirit to convince
without forcing a person to engage in something against their conscience.
4. Though
#3 seems to follow from #2, nevertheless, the accent in both passages is that
as long as an activity is thought wrong to a particular Christian or group of
Christians, then the stronger brother must give up his freedom for the sake of
the weaker brother’s conscience—as a matter of love and glorifying God (e.g.
Rom. 14:7-8; 15:1-2; 1 Cor. 10:23-33). This is true as long as there are no
stronger theological issues that would trump the opposition by the weaker
brother. For example, in Corinth a potential weaker brother might claim, “I am
bothered by Christians marrying since my experience with sexual relations among
Corinthians-at-large has been so negative and so filled with sin. I think all
true Christians should abstain from all sex, including marriage.” (This, by the
way, appears to be the situation behind chapter 7) To this, Paul would not say,
“Well, o.k. Corinthians, don’t marry because you don’t want to offend the weaker
brother.” No, there is a stronger biblical principle in play—namely the
potential of dishonoring God through sexual sin if most Christians are not
marrying. Likewise, he would not allow the practice of spiritual sensational
gifts (such as ecstatic speech) to trump the preservation of love and the
priority of God’s Word (1 Cor. 12-14). In other words, he would not allow a
Christian to say, “I am offended by those who put the brakes or restraints upon
my use of ecstatic speech or utterances, since they are part of my worship of
God.” No, in Paul’s mind, there are stronger issues at play.
5. It appears that stumbling blocks can exist merely
by one’s presence at a place associated with an offensive activity (1 Cor.
8:10). Also, a stumbling blocks can exist at the level of engaging in an action
when a particular person is present for whom the activity is a problem (1 Cor.
10:25, 28). As an example in the first case, when a person is part of a
congregation that largely believes any alcohol consumption is wrong, the wisest
approach for a Christian who affirms moderate alcohol consumption is not to go
to the town liquor store. Such in and of itself can be a stumbling block,
especially if the Christian going to the store is in a position of authority.
As an example in the latter case,
if a person is part of a congregation that does not have a corporate position
on drinking one way or the other, yet they invite over to their house a brother
or sister who believes abstinence is the only ethical position, it would be
wrong to drink in front of them or to offer them alcohol when the host knows
they have this stance.[4]
6. In both of the key biblical texts (Romans
14; 1 Corinthians 8-10), it appears that a stumbling block is present when
Christians are legitimately concerned that an activity may involve or lead to
sin. In each case the most likely concern on the part of the weaker
Christian was that those who held on to the freedom would be involved in
idolatry. Paul’s contention in both cases was that this would not necessarily
arise, but the stronger believer must take into consideration the conscience of
the weaker brother who feared the possible sin.
Very different from this would be
a group of Christians who were concerned that the surrounding town was offended
by non-sinful activities of fellow Christians. If such concern led to the first
group of Christians being offended by the actions of the second group, this
would not constitute a stumbling block issue. For example, let’s say a church
had a number of college-age students who like to go onto the local campus to
preach on the sidewalks. A second Christian group believes such preaching is
more harmful than helpful—based upon the reactions of their co-workers in town.
In such a situation no potential stumbling block is present—at least as defined
by Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8-10.
7. Based upon experience in the Church, it
seems clear that though many potential stumbling block issues can be decided
based upon the above principles, there will remain disagreement on a minority
of issues among Christians. In other words, there will be some issues that
some say are stumbling block issues and some will say there are greater
biblical issues at play and cannot be constituted as stumbling block
issues. In such issues all involved must
do their best to preserve love among each other to the glory of God, even when
they must agree to disagree. In such cases, biblical guidelines for working
through differences must be followed (e.g. Mt. 5:23-24; 18:15ff.) and those
involved must do their best by the grace of God to give each other the benefit
of the doubt (see 1 Cor. 13:7). The
wisest approach may even be for church leaders and/or the congregation to draw
up a statement upon the congregation’s position—one which would formulate the
key biblical boundaries to be followed and then leave room for freedom of
conscience in the details (e.g. Acts 15:1-35).
[1] To give parallels from
other areas of congregational life, whether or not pastors teach on God’s
sovereign grace is not a stumbling block issue. In other words, a pastor should
not refrain from such teaching simply because some might not like it or be
offended. There are larger issues (doctrinal fidelity) at play than one’s
offense. Additionally, it cannot be deemed a stumbling block issue whether or
not a person follows biblical guidelines of conflict resolution and whether or
not they release resentment against others. The Bible is clear on these issues.
Though the biblical steps might be uncomfortable for some Christians, they are absolutely
necessary.
Another
Pauline example of a disagreement that could not be classified a stumbling
block issue was his account of the time he confronted Peter who capitulated to
Judaizers from Jerusalem
[2] It appears that some in Rome
[3] Because Revelation 2:14
mentions eating food sacrificed to idols in a negative light, some Bible
readers might ask, “What is going on there? Does this contradict Paul who seems
to say that eating such food is not wrong in and of itself unless it causes
another to stumble?” Upon closer inspection of Revelation 2:14 the reader will
notice that John is not writing that those in Pergamum are eating such food.
This eating of such food was engaged in by the Israelites in the wilderness at
the instigation of Balaam. If the reader goes back to that incident, he will
find out that the Israelites were actually engaging in idol worship (Nu. 25:2).
So, in the case of Rev. 2:14, the eating of food sacrificed to idols stands for
actual idolatry. The point is that the false teaching present in Pergamum was
leading people both to idolatry and sexual sin, as did the false teaching of
Balaam with Israel in the wilderness. So, there is no contradiction with what
Paul writes.
Most
likely the “food sacrificed to idols” in the subsequent context (Rev. 2:20) is
meant to carry the same meaning as 2:14, namely there was actual idolatry
taking place among the believers of Thyatira whenever they participate in such
meals. It was not merely eating the food or being at the place that was under
consideration. So, again, there is no contradiction with what Paul writes.
[4] In either case it seems
most likely to me that there is a known problem among the group or the
individual against the activity. For example, a generation or two ago many
Christians opposed going to movies b/c a Christian from anywhere might drive by
and see a Christian attending a theater and be offended. That is a
misapplication or over-application of this teaching. It would only apply if a
person was part of a congregation who wrestled with this issue or if a
Christian tried to “drag” along with him to a theater a Christian brother who
was bothered by going to such a place.
No comments:
Post a Comment