Date: 21 Jan 2003
Time: 07:59:41
Since I am not preaching on the third Sunday after Epiphany, I am looking ahead to the next Sunday in the pulpit. I have some thoughts in the early stage of developing a sermon on this passage that are leading my in the direction of preaching on Christian responsibility with regard to guarding one's influence. For instance, I may have no problem with drinking alcoholic beverages and thus not having to worry about becoming an alcoholic. However, my drinking in public would give the appearance that doing so is an acceptable behavior for a Christian to do which might lead my brother or sister into becoming an alcoholic. I realize that this thought could be taken to an extreme to the point diminishing the abundant life for which Jesus came that we might have. At this point, we must pray for the Holy Spirit to guide us in guarding our influence. TN Mack
Date: 21 Jan 2003
Time: 18:46:57
TN Mack, you said, "My drinking in public would give the appearance that doing so is an acceptable behavior for a Christian to do which might lead my brother or sister into becoming an alcoholic."
Are you suggesting (a) that drinking an alcoholic beverage is not acceptable behavior for God's people and (b) that simply by having a drink you would be encouraging or causing alcholoism in someone else? I submit that both are erroneous suggestions.
Blessings, Eric in KS
Date: 23 Jan 2003
Time: 10:02:06
In the UMC there is a history of being for prohibition. The disciple states responsible use. There in lies the quandry in some umc's. Just a bit of background. On the other hand all this stuff about food is interesting in light :-) of the news about portion and weight. Don't know if there is something there yet. Nancy-Wi
Date: 27 Jan 2003
Time: 13:22:00
I would say that drinking is an excellent example of what Paul is saying here. Not that the Christian can not drink, but that Christian should not drink if it is a "conscience issue" for another Christian. Paul said that if someone who is troubled by the eating of meat offered to idols sees you entering the temple, you may be causing him spiritual distress. This was especially true for people who had come into the Corinthian church from pagan churches that had rituals that involved sacrificing meat and then eating it. They evidently felt that eating the meat seemed like a continuation of their pagan practece. Since the excess was taken to the market, Paul says that it is better to not eat meat at all. The theme was that loving and building up fellow Christians was more important than exercising your freedom and your rights. I think drinking in the presence of alcoholics is a valid transfer of the concept. More important to not trouble the "weak" than to make a point of your freedom to do so. The continuing theme in this portion of 1 Corinthians is doing the loving thing. Paul is continually turning to discernment and moderation as a way for Christians to make their way in life. Just a thought Larry in Indy
Date: 27 Jan 2003
Time: 13:58:36
This Sunday we will be celebrating Eucharist and this text seems to be pulling me toward the idea that we DO need to take care when exercising our personal liberties that we do not somehow negatively influence those who are less spiritually mature in their faith. Yet that very thought seems to smack of vanity about our own spiritual maturity -- and perhaps the egotistical idea that we really have some sort of power over the lives of others. Are we setting a good example? Or do we have the capability of tripping up others by our actions? Early musings for me this week, but need to get a start on Sunday since I will be spending most of Thursday defending my Credo at seminary. This is the last hurdle to graduation, so I am rather nervous about it! Your prayers, dear sisters & brothers, will be most welcome! StudentPastor in KS
Date: 27 Jan 2003
Time: 14:04:32
I think we all know that other people are always watching us with a critical eye. It is our sometimes hypocritical behavior that some people use as an excuse for not coming to church. We all have something in our lives that could be a stumbling block to other people. We all have growing edges. It could be that weight thing. It could be controlled moderate drinking. It could be the movies we go see. But I think there will always be something. I do not think we should flaunt our issues in front of others - i.e. "If you are affronted, too bad!" We all try to justify our behavior. I like to rent movies, but it is hard to find any that do not have something offensive in them. Even movies like "On Golden Pond." Hey, it was a good movie, although I felt Kathryn Hepburn and Henry Fonda were far above having to swear. It added nothing to the movie. So, do I need to watch whatI rent? Maybe so. I don't condone the language or violence. I think as far as this scripture goes, what strikes me most is the issue of being puffed up with knowledge vs. love. Some people are really puffed up. They think their church is better or that they are superior in their knowledge of the Bible or superior spiritually. I don't think we are to be running around saying "How great I am." We are to be building each other up! Love does build up! PH in OH
Date: 1/28/2003
Time: 8:08:28 AM
I am in the beginning stages of homelitic thought and one thing that leaps out to me are the many/one references. (I liberally count 7 in 13 verses.) I don't quite know what I'm going to do with this, but it is something to ponder.
shalom, Pastor D in WV
Date: 1/28/2003
Time: 9:13:00 AM
Eric, Thanks for your response. Looking at the text, what Paul seems to be saying is that there are those gray areas in which we may not have issues about social customs but those whom we are serving might. You say both a and b implied statements are erroneous. I have no proof of saying that one leads to the other but you have no proof otherwise. We just have opinions that cannot be proven. Yes, Jesus drank alcoholic beverages, but if he were living in today's society where that has become such a problem for so many, I would think that he would choose not to do so because of his influence on others. Don't get me wrong in thinking that I have always ascribed to abstinence and still occasionally drink alcoholic beverages when far from my parish. However, this text seems to call us to consider the influences that we have on others and err on the side of caution. TN Mack
Date: 1/28/2003
Time: 12:35:16 PM
TN Mack and Eric Perhaps the issue of drinking can be looked at in this way. It is not uncommon for any of us to be out with friends nad discover or know that one or more of them is a recovering alcoholic. My usual response to this is to be sensetive about my own drinking in light of their struggle. This is not about my place as clergy. It is about my place as one travelling with them on the path regardless of for how long. So, sometimes the person is fine with other people's social drinking and lets the folks know that. Other times it is clear that they need support in this struggle and my having a drink is no longer fun or easy if I know it would cause them distress. Perhaps this is more to what Paul was getting at. What jumped out at me in light of the place I find myself in with my folk is vs. 9. I wonder if our freedom to go or not go to church, our freedom to be involved or not be involved, our freedom to be people of faith or not has caused many to fall away because they no longer see, feel or know the need to be people of faith. Here we are in the most free country (by some people's standards) in the world and we have a pretty poor showing both at church and at the polls. Perhaps our freedom to NOT have to pay attention, be sensetive, understand how our behaviors affect others, take responsibility for the things of this life keeps us from being effective in reconciling the world to God and transforming this chaos as partners with Christ. "I can eat that meat and I'm gonna since you have to take care of yourself." "I don't have to go to church because someone else will be ther to... (fill in the blank)." "I don't have to share the good news with others because that is their personal business." And have we taken this to the point where our young people opt out of church because they watch their elders doing just that? What "food" do we eat in front of people who can't handle it? What distinctions do we draw that seperate us from others when we should be removing obstacles and coming together? VT robin
Date: 1/28/2003
Time: 12:44:11 PM
TN Mack;
I hear what you're saying, but I am uncomfortable with the fact that you take a drink far from the parish. Why do you need to hide?
My own personal practice is not to 'hide' that I take a drink. People know that I do. I'm open about it. However, I would not offend a teetotal by drinking in their presence if it were to cause harm.
I'm not sure that the issue of alcohol is a good hermeneutical equivalent for the 'idol meat' question. To eat idol meat (for the weak) was tantamount to worshipping at the alters of the idols. This was more than a social/cultural issue - it was about allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. To drink alcohol or not a 'social' question. To drink alcohol is not ipso facto worshipping at the shrine of an idol. Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?
The key to this passage is found in verse 6. Is Jesus Lord? If he is, then he is Lord even of the meat that has been offered to idols. Is Jesus Lord? Then love should govern our relationships to our brothers and sisters in Christ - not superior knowledge or freedom.
A Canadian in Scotland.
Date: 1/28/2003
Time: 1:24:16 PM
perhaps there might be an application here regarding homosexuality and being in the closet verses out of the closet. just a thought. G in Oregon
Date: 1/28/2003
Time: 1:35:38 PM
I quite agree with "A Canadian in Scotland."
It seems that when we approach this passage from the standpoint of what we can compare "eating-meat-offered-to-idols" to, then we get in homiletical trouble. It sets up the superiority issue someone else mentioned. It get awkward trying to define the line between being "too careful" and "not careful enough."
Paul is not just trying to come up with a handy example he can use to make a point--what he brings up (namely, eating the meat offered to idols) IS the point for the Corinthians. But that does not mean we should merely fill in the blank with another issue (say, drinking alcoholic beverages) just because we do not have the "meat" issue any more. Rather, we should ask what was at stake here for Paul and those he determined were "weaker" spiritually. Not that "drinking" is irrelevant, but we run the risk of hiding Paul's point by shining the spotlight too brightly on another issue.
I think that is where the focus on the Lordship of Christ comes in. We are better off asking questions like this: What was significant in those days about eating the meat offered to idols? What ways do people in our day distract others from following Christ? What behaviors/attitudes on the part of Jesus' contemporary followers would cause others to stumble or take the wrong path?
I don't have many answers to these questions yet, so I invite conversation.
TK in OK
Date: 1/28/2003
Time: 2:49:04 PM
I am thinking that this passage may lead us to ask: "Upon what does my faith depend?" When we are securely in a relationship with God, then we have the liberty to eat meat that was formally involved in the worship of pagan idols, or superstitious behaviours. Perhaps then, we can further widen the discussion. If we are "securely" in a relationship with God, can we, for example, not take the scripture literally. We can do this, because our faith does not depend on the infallibility of the scriptures. Do we have the liberty to question the scriptures? Do we have the liberty to question our church traditions and institution? Do we have the liberty to take part in the culture of our society, because our faith is rooted in the right place? If we are not in a secure relationship with God, then things like pagan-meat, fundementalism, church authority and cultural activities become stumbling blocks. Brent in Pincher
Date: 1/28/2003
Time: 6:40:59 PM
Canadian in Scotland. I get your drift, but I think you fail to see that there is indeed a connection between cultural norms that vary from region to region and how abstaining from strong drink is a part of the belief structure of the people I served. If this is not a modern example what would be one given the fact that eating meat offered to an idol is a non-issue in today's world. If there is no relevant issue, why bother preaching on this text. I can remember discussing the matter of drinking alcoholic beverages with a clergy collegue who served in the Long Island area of New York. He indicated that his parishners would offer him a drink in their home, and he was somewhat obliged to do so if he did not want to offend them. Serving a former EUB church in the Tennessee is quite a different story. It is not a matter of being ashamed of taking an occasional drink. It is a matter of choosing not to do that which would probably cause me to not be appointed to serve a church in the conference in which I grew up and love, even though many of the people I serve are much more conservative than I. I still believe the principle involved in Paul's writing to the Corinthians is choosing not to do that which may offend a brother or sister or lead him or her to consider doing something that goes against a belief structure. By the way, I am enjoying the debate this has generated. The responses depict how we indeed represent perspectives from around the globe. TN Mack
Date: 1/28/2003
Time: 8:09:17 PM
Hi again all,
Let's not get away from the issue of the text. It was not and is not about right and wrong. It's about what is the loving thing to do. Paul is saying he has the perfect right, and he believes the authority, to eat the meat that had been offered in the pagan temple. But it would not be a loving thing to do in light of the fact that it was a troubling and divisive issue in that community. He would be right as far as what Christian faith allows but wrong in terms of creating an environment of comfort and building each other up.
Our church is on a major street, that is a four lane road, but there is no parking lane. People are perfectly within their rights to park in front of their homes instead of driving to the back alley to park. But it does make everyone merge into one lane. We call it "legal but stupid." It makes people pretty angry when folks park there.
One of the things Paul is saying is that there are actions that are not outside of the Christian way of life, but do disturb other Christians. It's more significant when they are new in the faith, or at the point where they are considering the claims of Christianity. In this case they just may have been new converts from these pagan religions or wondering about what Christianity is. (Some conjecture there.) That's not a far stretch from drinking or discussing drinking in the presence of people who are struggling to stay away from the bar scene, whether or not they are alcoholics. Or from discussing the sexual themes of a movie you've seen in the presence of some one who struggles with pornography or is dealing with a child he wants to keep away from that genre.
I agree that we won't find a tight application to set beside eating the meat that has been sacrificed to idols. But I would submit that the pursuit of pleasure, the gratification of desires, and impulses that are difficult to manage can be considered an idolatry.
One of the questions Paul is asking is "What is the loving thing to do in the presence of these people." He is specifically saying that he is setting what is permitted to the side, and trying to act in love. He would be "right but hurtful" to eat it.
In this one, the hermaneutical circle is difficult to close because we can't really get into the place that the former meat sacrificers were in.
Larry in Indy
Date: 1/29/2003
Time: 1:40:15 AM
Consider this personal experience concerning the application of this text to the issue of drinking. Years ago, when I was in college, I played in a band with a young teenager who was an incredible musician. My parents were "teetotalers" and I was taught that having even one sip of alcohol could lead to a life of alcoholism. I was rebelling and experimenting and I enjoyed drinking and being wild whenever our band would play. It never occured to me that I might be negatively influencing this young teenager (he was probably 14). After all those rebellious days I hardly ever drink alcohol and it is practically a non-issue for me. However, this young guy who witnessed my experimenting became a professional musician who has really suffered with substance abuse. His parents, whom I love and care about, have suffered and continue to suffer with their son and is ongoing substance abuse problems. I hope and pray that my actions did not cause or even contribute to this young man's problems, but who knows. This is an important discussion and an important application of this text in my opinion. Picky Preacher in GA
Date: 1/29/2003
Time: 2:05:48 AM
Another issue concerning this text is the way Christians handle Halloween. I agree with Paul, that idols don't exist and there is only one God. I have never given a second thought to witches and ghouls and goblins at Halloween. Years ago, when the child killings were taking place in Atlanta, I was appointed to a church that started holding a Halloween Carnival as a safe alternative to trick-or-treating. The children in the community loved it as did the adults who organized it and it seemed like a great thing. When it was time to plan it for the second year one church member, who was a fundamentalist and a literalist when it came to scripture and theology, objected and said that our church would not hold a Halloween Carnival as long as he was a member. He said we would lead the children and youth into "witchcraft and satanism." There was quite a conflict over this because the rest of the church said, "There's no such thing as witches and/or witchcraft so what's the harm?" I was torn because I agreed that there is no such thing and the carnival was a safe alternative considering the fear about the child killings. On the other hand, I also remembered this text and Paul's instruction about my knowledge and freedom being a stumbling for this "weaker" brother. We settled it by having a "Fall Festival" with no witches and no fortune teller, but most of the people in the church were not happy about it. This text has far reaching implications if you ask me. I still do not believe there is any such thing as a witch and those who practice witchcraft have absolutely no power, but for a lot of Christians this is quite a stumbling block. How do we apply Paul's teaching? Picky Preacher in GA
Date: 1/29/2003
Time: 6:05:06 AM
An additional comment and thought.
I believe still, that we must delve beneath the surface of this text, asking about WHY the "meat offered to idols" was such a divisive and hurtful matter. I do not agree that it had to do with "gratification of desires"--but it certainly had to do with "satisfaction of NEEDS."
SO...perhaps what we should be asking is how people get their needs met, and whether our various approaches to our needs clearly indicate the Lordship of Jesus Christ in our lives.
Still working...
TK in OK
Date: 1/29/2003
Time: 8:52:45 AM
Student pastor in KS said "defending my credo this week." Are you by any chance a student at Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City? My MDiv is from Saint Paul and I remember credo! My prayers are with you whether you are there or not. Max in NC
Date: 1/29/2003
Time: 8:54:44 AM
Oops, sorry, Student Pastor, what was in quotes was not a direct quote in my previous post. A senior moment.. Max in NC
Date: 1/29/2003
Time: 1:17:33 PM
It sure connects with 1 Cor. 13, which says that if we have all knowledge without love, we have nothing. So I've been thinking about how there are people who have a lot of knowledge, and they have love, so as to lead, encourage and build up other people. A teacher patiently builds up a student who is trying to learn something. A teacher who has knowledge, but no love, isn't going to be of much help. A grandparent can have knowledge and love in that they build up their grandchildren by teaching them, patiently, skills and abilities. These people, with knowledge and love, have to set aside meeting their own needs in order to build up others. If they don't, their knowledge isn't as valuable. Brent in Pincher
Date: 1/29/2003
Time: 5:17:49 PM
TK in OK is right on. Paul is building up to 1 Corinthians 13 here, but even in this passage we see that it's most important to do the loving thing. I was off the lectionary the last two weeks and used two earlier passages from 1 Corinthans. One of Pauls formative arguments was in chapter 6, where he says "All things are permitted, but not all are beneficial." (Not an exact quote, but the loving thing to do right now is tend to my seven year olds hunger needs. Gotta go!)
Larry in Indy
Date: 1/29/2003
Time: 6:01:46 PM
I would like to share another take on this Scripture with 3 points 1. I think of “strong” and “weak” Christians in the same way we name ourselves today such as Liberal, conservative, fundamentalist, orthodox, traditionalist etc. I’m not equating any of those with strong or weak. But what strikes me is how Paul was trying to guide the worshippers to stay together as the “body of Christ”. 2. When I was serving another parish, I performed a wedding. The situation was complicated because one of the families struggled with a conflicting divorce. It took a lot of pastoral guidance to lead these families through the ceremonies. So when one of the parents said they wanted to pay for and prepare for the reception, I was too busy to watch out for what they were preparing. You can imagine my shock (well some of you would), when I walked down to the church basement delightfully decorated and most of my congregation present, and found beside all the plates a “wine glass.” What to do? Cancel the reception? Bawl out the parent for not checking with me (she had been the most conflicted of the families)? I decided to sit at my seat, and turn my glass over making it clear that I would not participate. You see, I knew many of my members imbibed on a regular basis. When I did so, members (including the parent) turned to me and said, “Oh pastor, we wouldn’t do that. We respect both you and the church. It was sparking grape juice. 3. If we look at this Scripture from a global perspective, with Paul admonition to the “Strong” Christians, to act out of love instead of “puffed up” knowledge, could there be an answer to our world concerning war attitudes? Is there a way we have not consider regarding our understanding of others and how we consider them. Is it out of our so called “knowledge,” and not love? Shalom
Pasthersyl
Date: 1/30/2003
Time: 9:27:50 AM
Anyone else notice the paradox of defining ourselves as "spiritually mature," especially in relation to those "less" mature? Is this puffing up or building up, and what a tightrope we walk on in trying to decide while maintaining our own submission to Christ.
Do you really know anyone who goes around saying, "Yeah, I'm spiritually immature." I rather doubt it; we all think we have special insight.
Oh, Lord, it's hard to be humble ... when you're as mature as we are! ;-)
Sally
Date: 1/30/2003
Time: 9:42:54 AM
Oh, and if anyone is still interested in the alcohol issue, Wesley advised against it and insisted on total abstinence (except for medicinal purposes) because at the time he taught, gin had become inexpensive and thus available to the working class folks. Since the working poor were really outcast, many took to drinking because they could afford it. Wesley noticed peoples' compulsion to drink, and described what we now know as alcoholism. He noticed that families were getting torn apart, peoples' health suffered, and there was a cyclical financial bind.
For the Eucharist, it was still often wine until sometime in the 1800's when a man named Welch discovered how to bottle (to quote our old Book of Worship) "the unfermented juice of the grape" so other Methodists could celebrate the Lord's Supper without alcohol.
Today we still use grape juice specifically because of alcoholism. I know many who can't receive the cup if there's real wine in it. It has nothing to do with a moral opposition to alcohol; it has everything to do with "stumbling blocks."
Last but not least, here's a funny story: especially if Eric's still about. I took a confirmation class to an Episcopalian Cathedral in town for worship one Sunday. (I'd taken them to a Church of God the previous Sunday). Anyways, I told them ahead of time that there would be actual wine in the cup and that they could choose whether or not to receive it if they really had an ethical problem with it. After receiving, as I followed the kids back, one girl started weaving and turned to me and said, "I think I'm drunk!" All I could do to keep from laughing.
Sally in GA
Date: 1/30/2003
Time: 9:48:19 AM
oops, left out a crucial statement: they'd really gotten themselves worked up over the wine issue.
sally
Date: 1/30/2003
Time: 11:35:53 AM
Does this text not speak of how we use our power. We may be right, but totally wrong, if we use power to take advantage of the weak. Consider the other seems to be the message here, and it applies as much to a nation who would wield its power against the weak, as it does a Christian who would use their wealth without consideration of what their waste is doing to the world or future generations. jp in bg
Date: 1/30/2003
Time: 2:22:37 PM
I plan to tie in this week's lection with the followng:
Romans 14:5-8 (NIV) "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. [6] He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. [7] For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. [8] If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord."
Where I'm going is the futility of making things such a drinking or other non-central beliefs a litmus test for the Christian faith. My title will be a Wesleyan (or someone else's) quote: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
This is weighing heavily on me as I serve my two small churches. Our fledgling youth ministry is reeling after the loss of one family representing half of the youth. The reason appears to be one parent's resentment of my openness to doctrines other than the six 24-hour day creation. Pray for me not to get caught up in preaching that will further alienate this family.
Rich in Bama
Date: 1/30/2003
Time: 4:42:31 PM
Dear Rich I'm sure there are a lot of us praying for you. Just remain faithful, God will give the increase.
Shalom
pasthersyl
Date: 1/30/2003
Time: 8:54:21 PM
Sally in GA. Thanks for the comments about Wesley. Rich in Bama. Sorry to hear about your struggles with the family. I love the line "a heresy is not a non-truth, a heresy is claiming to have all the truth." I don't think you are a heretic when you espouse something different from what other people think. But neither can they claim to have all the truth. Peace, Brent in Pincher.
Date: 1/31/2003
Time: 9:11:59 AM
Hi!
I studied theology in Hong Kong for a year, living half of the time in residence, and half of the time with a local family.
One of the elements of the culture is veneration (one possible word) of the ancestors - ie, those who are dead. In this, the family goes to the cemetary with incence and food and tea. These things are offered in a ritual, and then the food remaining is consumed.
So, what to do? The response of the theological students varied from "stay home"; to "go with a rose and lay it on the grave, but don't eat the food"; to "participate with an understanding that is one of respecting, not worshipping."
Yes, Paul's text speaks to a variety of issues today!
My sermon title is "It's not that simple", with the idea that Paul is inviting us, in our own context, to look at a variety of ethical issues: I agree that alcohol is one, as is the veneration of the ancestors, but also other ethical issues before us: cloning; use of aborted fetuses; euthanasia; death penalty; ETC.
And in all things: love.
peace
kent in Quebec
Date: 1/31/2003
Time: 9:42:05 AM
Max in NC,
Yes, I am at Saint Pau; & thank you for your prayers. I had a lot of people praying for me & the prayers were at least partially answered in the affirmative. However, I did not do well enough in conference to receive a passing grade on Credo this time around. I will be re-writing over the next few weeks in hopes of succeeding at the end of March. Disappointed, of course, but not surprised -- and it isn't the end of the world. I just have to try again!
Now, to work on the immediate needs of the weekend -- crafting a message that is both nourishing and short!
StudentPastor in KS
Date: 1/31/2003
Time: 10:46:13 AM
Several thoughts and a question-
On drinking- I was raised Methodist before we became United Methodist. Joining those drinking German EUBs we had to lighten up on the prohibition stuff. But not MY mama. WE were tea-totalers, thank-you-very-much. Never been a problem for me as I don't care for the taste, but my brother started drinking out of high school. He loved his mother and loved his beer, so he hid and drank and felt guilty. The key question for me is are you hiding whatever you do from shame or merely refraining in public from respect for others(and is that a cop-out). Attitude makes a difference. And it is easy to be puffed up and proud about what comes easy to you. The Baptist and Methodist preachers co-officiated a wedding. At the reception they were offered champagne. The Methodist sheepishly said,"Well, I wouldn't normally, but to share the celebration I'll have a sip." The Baptist stormed, "Why I'd just as soon commit adultery as let liquor pass my lips!" The Methodist quickly put down his glass and stammered, "Oh, I didn't know we had a choice."
Thanks to whoever expanded the discussion to Halloween.Once I was invited to a neighboring church of a different denomination to do my "gospel magic" act during their "Noah's Arkfest", their alternative to a Halloween party. All the kids were invited to come dressed as their favorite animal from the ark (lots of Barbie princesses saved from the flood apparently). I was asked not to use the terms "magic" or "magician" but to refer to myself as they did, as a "Christian Illusionist." They respected my ability but worried over the impression some might have. I laughed, but agreed rather than take offense where none was meant. Every kid through the door asked, "Are you the magician?" "Yeah," I finally started answering, "I am. Want to see a trick?" Many got fooled, but none were deceived. Christmas is a problem too. I have had several folks in several places (but always a decided minority) who had a scruple against a Christmas tree in the sanctuary. Most folks wanted and expected one. What to do? Suffer the strong, and let the weak suffer?
On meat and idols- I heard once that part of the issue in Corinth was that sacrificial left-overs were much cheaper than first run meat from the butcher. So it was an economic issue(like the cheap gin in Wesley's day, maybe). Do I spend more and get "clean meat" or take the cheap route and wonder about the spiritual implications. Can we buy cheap Bibles printed and bound in China, where their own folks suffer from trying to worship? Can we have VBS t-shirts made by sweat shop kids in the third world? It would allow us more budget for missions. What economic issues equate where we are? When theology and economics collide, who wins?
Finally, a question- I notice many of Pauls phrases are in quotation marks. Who is he quoting? Is he being sarcastic in any of his references? I know it was a rhetorical device he could use quite well. To "all of us possess knowledge," he answers that knowledge puffs up and love builds up. Who is the "all of us?" Is it gnostics? Are there several views represented? Does anyone have some info to share on this subject? I do NOT have knowledge. I must get puffed up in time to deflate again before Sunday. Help. tom in TN(USA)
Date: 1/31/2003
Time: 1:53:54 PM
Tom in TN - thank you for your comments. A Christian magician, huh? How far away are you from Atlanta (I never miss a chance for a resource - I'm shameless)? Our church called ours "Holy"Ween just because of the stumbling block. I asked kids to not wear anything depicting evil or un-dead. When I announced it to my congregation, I mentioned my ambivalence about the name: while Halloween is a fun day that started specifically because we DO have victory in Christ (we tell the "ghosts" nyah nyah nyah NYAH nyah), I realize that many could be put off by a church celebrating Halloween. There is a lot of misconception about the day. On the one hand, I hate to acquiesce to ignorance, but on the other, I don't want to put stumbling blocks in anyone's way.
I've decided to call my sermon "I dont' believe it" because over and over v. 2 kept sticking out to me: seems like the basis for a hermeneutic of suspicion. The way Paul throws around the word "knowledge" is a little confusing; I think I'd better read it aloud a few times before worship. Can we believe we know something without being puffed up and hollow like the Sta-Puf marshmallow man in Ghost Busters? I don't think so. I doubt any of us can. And that's specifically WHY we need to hear new teaching.
Sally in GA
Date: 2/1/2003
Time: 2:33:54 AM
It is important to recognise that Paul's argument here eventually leads to a total prohibition of eating idol meat in the temple (ch. 10). Paul is not talking about 'offending' other Christians. He is speaking about causing other Christians to be 'destroyed' by our so-called freedom and liberty. Tom in TN has hit on some of the critical issues that call for us to decide whether Jesus is Lord or something else is Lord. If we look at this passage as one of not 'offending' others, we will become hostage to the most sensitive in our congregations. The litmus test of our actions is whether another Christian will have their faith destroyed and be turned away from Christ because we have led them to the alters of modern day idols. Preoccupation with alcohol or whether women should wear hats in church or whether we should go to the cinema may be issues. . .but they cannot be equated with what Paul is saying here. I appeal for great care to be taken with this text. See Gordon Fee's commentary in The New International Commentary on the New Testament and also Richard Hays in the Interpretation Commentary series. A Canadian in Scotland.
Date: 2/1/2003
Time: 6:52:06 AM
Concerning the question about Paul's statements in quotation marks: I remember from seminary that the Corinthian church used a lot of slogans. They would quote a slogan much like some today quote scripture to justify their statements, acts, etc. It was their form of "proof-texting". They were actually making their slogans and the freedom that came from their slogans more important than their fellow church members. Paul is telling them that their priorities are out of place and they needed to put first things first.
Another example related to drinking: When I was drinking I also had my proof text that justifies my use of alcohol. It was Matthew 11:16-19 where Jesus said to the establishment folks: You are like children sitting in the market place and calling out to others...the Son of Man came eating and drinking and they say here is a glutton and a drunkard..." I justified my freedom to drink by saying that Jesus also drank and was accused of being a drunkard. Basically I was saying, "I am going to do what I want to do and to hell with the rest of you. Here is my justification for this. I did not care about how my actions might influence others who were younger and impressionable. I have regrets about that now, but I guess Paul had regrets about many of his actions before he met the risen Lord on the road to Damascus.
Picky Preacher in GA
Date: 2/1/2003
Time: 10:56:27 AM
Though still not sure what angle I want to take with this text, I have thought of a couple more, in case folks are still working, struggling.
One angle is to show how "counter-cultural" it would be in our day to exercise "righteous restraint" (hey, maybe a sermon title there!). We live in a world which tells us that whatever we can afford--no, wait--whatever we can GET, even if it means on credit--we should have, NOW. Perhaps the better contemporary connection with "eating-meat-offered-to-idols" is that of consumerism: just because we can acquire it does not mean we should. This keeps us from "compartmental theology": which says that some things are "spiritual" matters, and others are "material" matters. What Paul is pointing the Corinthians toward is understanding that just because "idols are nothing," does not mean that there is no spirituality truth at stake. Perhaps Paul would invite Christians in our day to consider that what we drive/wear/build/own has much to do with our claim that "Jesus is Lord."
Again, I follow what "A Canadian in Scotland" is saying about the issue not being a matter of "offending" but "misleading." That distinction is crucial.
Perhaps the connection with many people's hearts is to point to times in their lives when they've felt that twinge, that curiosity as to whether they are being truly devoted followers of Christ when they choose certain paths.
Also, we should note well that Paul starts with the Corinthians' own "proverbial" truth: "All of us have knowledge." Paul tells them that it is their WITNESS not their knowledge which should be their concern.
TK in OK
Date: 2/1/2003
Time: 2:35:48 PM
Sally in Ga.,
I'm outside Murfreesboro, just SE of Nashville. Glad to come and share the mystery and joy anywhere I can. Busy most Sundays, but if arrangements are right, who knows?
Canadian in Scotland, good point about destroying vs. offending. We are much too easily offended these days. Everybody walks on eggshells to be considered P.C., or else gets mad and proudly declares themselves "INcorrect" and thumbs their noses at the weak souls cramping their style. That's when some weak get destroyed. How can we exercise our freedom in Christ without trampling our weak brothers and sisters? It is love that keeps us on course. Care for others looks and listens for their hurts and weaknesses and seeks to heal and mend and raise up. a good question to start any day is, "How would I act if I loved these people?" to be followed by the reminder, "Oh, yeah, I do love them in the name of Christ."
tom in TN(USA) Mourning the fallen astronauts