Matters of Conscience vs. Matters of Morality

We were talking the other day in my Corinthians class about chapters 8-10, in which Paul explains how to deal with matters of conscience versus matters of morality and ethics. The hermeneutical subject of conversation, in other words, was that there are certain things as Christians we just shouldn't do because they are morally or ethically wrong (the obvious things such as murder, lying, stealing, etc.), but there are other things that are a matter of conscience (these are touchy subjects in many churches like drinking, dancing, watching certain movies... things that the Bible does not directly address).

We discussed some typical responses to this that Christians have:

1. legalism - making life black and white by making rules about everything, even matters of conscience (i.e. dancing is wrong, drums in worship are satanic, all drinking is bad, listening to secular music is wrong, levels of modesty, etc.)
2. lawlessness - considering everything acceptable because Christ has already taken the punishment
3. love - being free to do things out of love for God and others

The consensus was that it's easier to go the route of legalism, because all of your decisions are already made, and you don't have to think for yourself... and that the way of love can get messy, which is harder to deal with at times. Lawlessness was not even discussed (because obviously, that's wrong).

So, in Corinthians, the issue is food offered to idols. Paul establishes that idols are nothing, and that there is only one God, so eating food offered to idols is inconsequential to a Christian's faith. But there were people who felt that eating the food was wrong. It was likely (according to Gordon Fee, who writes the commentary we are studying) that these people were those who a) believed the idols were real, and thus believed that eating such food was an act of worship, b) were former idol worshipers who had too many associations with the practice and could not comprehend that it was okay, and/or c) those who thought it was just plain wrong. Those people, Paul calls the "weaker" brothers, because their conscience won't allow them to do such things. 

[side note: eating food in the temple, he says, was wrong because even though the idol didn't exist, it was still is an act of worship... so we're talking about eating food outside of the temple]

So Paul says, "don't ask". He told them to go ahead and buy their food without raising questions. But if someone told them that the food was sacrificed, for them not to buy/eat it for the sake of the other person's conscience, not for their own (because they were free to eat).

He tells the "stronger" brother not to pressure or tempt the "weaker" brother to do anything against his conscience, and he tells the "weaker" brother not to judge the "stronger" for his freedom in doing such things.
[side note: he is not actually setting up a spiritual hierarchy of who is better or stronger. He is merely using terms that help us to understand the concept]

So we asked the question, "Since Paul places so much emphasis on not causing the weaker brother to stumble, how much power, then, does the 'weaker' brother have over the 'stronger'? Where do you draw the line here?"

This is a touchy subject for me. Even in class, as we talked about the subject, I started to feel emotional and hurt for no apparent reason. It brings up a plethora of different anxieties from my experience as a leader in a church. I was taught as a leader not only to "not cause a brother to stumble," but to avoid even "the appearance of evil," so as to remain "above reproach." So, for example, if I was at a restaurant with friends, and someone wanted a beer, I would have to talk him out of it because I didn't want it to look like I was drinking. Or, if I went to my boyfriend's house early in the morning, I didn't want anyone to see me there, because it would look like I had stayed the night. Or if there was a church event and I wasn't there, I would try to go places I didn't think anyone would see me having a good time. I had to be secretive...

While we were dating, one day Dustin and I were in the parking lot of the church hugging, and then holding hands--praying, actually--and a woman saw us and went straight to the pastor's office and warned our pastor that she just knew Dustin was going to get me pregnant before marriage.

Thinking about all of this makes my blood pressure raise a little bit. My life was controlled by what other people thought--by what my actions "appeared" to be. I was controlled by the "weaker" brother. I was controlled by people who were judging me constantly. I taught my students (in the ministry program I led) to think this way as well--avoid even the appearance of evil, and to keep those around you accountable. So when I was in a situation in which the right thing looked like the wrong thing, I was in a panic because I desperately wanted to be a good example. And my students started to confront me (in an effort to keep me accountable) not only for actions that were wrong, but actions that only appeared to be wrong... I started to feel like I couldn't breathe without being confronted.

"Abstain from all appearance of evil" (1Th 5:22 KJV)

I have lived by this verse for more than a decade. And I realized the other day in our class that it doesn't mean "avoid looking evil." The word "appearance", or εἶδος (eidos) can mean, "the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape," or it can also mean, "form, kind." Avoiding the appearance of evil means, "avoid evil where it appears to be."

If anything, Jesus did not avoid appearing evil. He did abstain from evil itself. But he did not stop when people said he was corrupt for associating with tax collectors and prostitutes. He did not stop from accusations of being unclean while touching lepers in order to heal them. He did not care what he appeared to be. I'm sure there were times when he avoided saying or doing something for the sake of someone else's conscience, but he especially did not let the legalists dictate his actions.

So how much control does the "weaker" brother have?

Gordon Fee says:

First, it must be noted that Paul is not talking about merely offending someone by an action. Paul cares about that, too, as we shall see in the next lesson. But the stumbling block principle is used by Paul to refer to something different. It has to do with another brother or sister being destroyed or falling because of an action of another believer. They fall because they copy the action of the other believer, but cannot do so in good conscience

Second, how does this translate? I might be drawing fine lines here, but Paul will not let mere scruples judge his freedom (1 Cor. 10:29-30); although even here, he will try not to offend. Thus the stumbling block principle primarily deals with illegitimate actions, or at best borderline actions, that someone has convinced himself he can do without harm to his own Christian faith. Then someone else sees him doing it, and falls because he tries to do it also, but cannot do so with conviction.

Dr. Anderson (our teacher) shared a story of when she went to Germany and her friends there drank alcohol. She was, like many Christian Americans, raised to believe that drinking was wrong. So when they would drink, they would always taunt her, trying to get her to join in. And so she would simply judge them all to be sinners, and be proud of her own ability to abstain. Who were the sinners here? She said that her friends were sinning by trying to get her to compromise her beliefs, but that she was also sinning by judging their freedom to drink.

Paul says in 1 Cor. 4:3 that he cares very little if he is judged by people. Yet in chapter 9, he says that he makes himself a slave to everyone for the sake of the gospel. What I gather from this is that Paul is not doing things out of concern for what people think of him, but rather out of concern for their well-being. "For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved." (1Co 10:33 NIV).

What I'm learning is that as Christians, we do not have to be slaves to the offended. We do not have to submit to manipulation and control. We must only be motivated by love, not by fear of judgment. Hebrews 4:13 says, "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." It is God to whom we are accountable, not man. This is good news because God's judgment of us was swallowed up in Christ's death and we are forever redeemed from sin. Mankind wants to carry out punishment. God sent Christ to take our punishment. When we accepted Him as our savior, we were made free from guilt and shame on the merit of Christ alone. The fact that I am accountable to God and not man is the best news I could hear. People can be so mean. But God is full of love for me, and pours out His mercy day after day. What a good God!

1 Corinthians 7:23 says, "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings." What this means is that we can use our freedom to act or not to act out of the love that God has poured into our hearts. We can do in our own freedom, or not do, in order to help our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ be the best they can be. But we need never be afraid of judging eyes. We must only walk in the love that Christ has filled us with.

This is something I have been desperately needing to hear. All those years, living in fear. Now I am free.

This is good news, indeed.