Sacrificed to Idols.
Let’s talk about meat.
In Acts 21:25, it is stated that the Apostles had given the Gentiles a command to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, which seems straightforward. By a legalistic standard, then, the fact that the Apostles had prayerfully considered the purity standard to which Gentiles should be held, and then asked them not to eat food sacrificed to idols (as well as cautioning them to eat unbloodied, or “kosher” meat) one should logically believe that this rule is Godly, and unchanging.
And yet:
1 Corinthians 8
Food Sacrificed to Idols
Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
So here we discover why the Apostles thought it best that the Gentiles abstain from certain meats, or adhere to the Jewish purity code where food was concerned. It was not that this law was necessary for holiness, but instead because not following it could become a barrier to understanding for others. So one could paraphrase this passage in vaguer terms by saying, “Knowledge builds confidence but love builds understanding. If you think you know everything, you don’t know much of anything yet… …Be careful that your freedom under the law doesn’t lead to lawlessness for other people. Because if someone without your understanding of God’s grace sees that you are freed from the law, won’t they be emboldened as well? And in exercising their freedom, might they not be tempted into true sin? So if your freedom leads one of your brothers away from God, haven’t you done a bad thing? I would rather starve myself than be a barrier to others.”
And I agree. I, too, would rather starve myself than become a barrier to others. Which is why I am careful about which lines I cross and when I cross them. I might joke a certain way or say certain things when I’m out gaming with my friends, but I wouldn’t necessarily speak or behave in that way in Christian company, because I’m aware that by doing so I may either cause my contemporaries to question my faith or cause their children to question their parents authority, both things that have negative consequences. And my stifling myself also can be misinterpreted as my being convicted that certain things are sin. Which is also untrue- it’s possible to acknowledge something has negative consequences (food sacrificed to idols) without saying that it is outright sinful.
My dad always defined sin this way: You are sinning when you are certain God has made a requirement of you, and you don’t obey. God may ask you to never eat a banana again, a command that appears to have no qualitative moral value, but if you eat a banana after you and God had that conversation, you are sinning.
There are other things that are certainly more black and white. Drunkenness, gluttony, laziness, lust. These are all things that are condemned in no uncertain terms, as is selfishness and gossip. There are large gray areas around things like the passages about Modesty in the Bible. Take, for example, 1st Timothy 2:9&10, in which Timothy said that women should dress “modestly”, not with braided hair and jewelry and expensive clothing, but with good deeds and humility.
Now, braided hair and jewelry, in this day and age, is not really “showy”. And how does one “dress” in good deeds? It is obvious that Timothy was pointing not specifically at their dress, but at their attitude. Isn’t it possible that these women had lost sight of what was really important? That they were trying to demonstrate their status within the church by their appearance? And then, doesn’t Timothy’s caution to dress in good deeds in humility make perfect sense as a response? The rule given, that of hair and gold, then speaks not to a true code of dress but a way to prohibit the behavior he’s trying to get to the heart of. It’s like if I were to be a youth pastor again, and all of the kids in my group were comparing cell phones instead of participating in the meditations. As a good youth pastor I would say “leave your phone at the door”, not because God hates cell phones but because the phones would have become an impediment to holiness.
And thus rules do not always have intrinsic value as a rule, instead they have value in achieving holiness. And when we consider the reasoning behind rules, we should consider the end goal with as much weight as we consider the rules. I would introduce homosexuality at this point, but instead I’ll go the hetero way. My mom likes to tell a story about a church that started logging complaints in the sixties because all the young women stopped wearing bras. The parishioners kept asking the clergy to order women to wear bras or kick them out of the church, and eventually there was a promise that the problem would be addressed plainly. How was it addressed? By a prayer from the pulpit that the men in the church would learn to control their lust.
I use that as an example because we all have responsibilities to work on those things that we know are sins- and often that means stopping picking at other peoples splinters to deal with our own specks. When we focus too much on the rules, we fall into legalism. So let’s focus on what really matters.
Let’s focus on our own holiness.
Pete Wilson replied:
Well said Lindsey!
June 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
I *love* your opening line…!
And yes, well said!
June 11, 2008 at 4:40 pm. Permalink.
Stephanie replied:
Let’s talk about meat.
LOL. That’s great.
This is yet another reason I love coming here.
You look deeper in to the rules and you break things down in order to obtain a better understanding.
Again, very well said Lindsey.
June 11, 2008 at 5:30 pm. Permalink.
M54 replied:
Good post. (like you need my approval. haha)
Lindsey wrote 1): “Which is why I am careful about which lines I cross and when I cross them.”
and, 2)
“There are other things that are certainly more black and white. Drunkenness, gluttony, laziness, lust. These are all things that are condemned in no uncertain terms, as is selfishness and gossip. There are large gray areas around things like the passages about Modesty in the Bible.”
1) Quite the balancing act. As long as everyone remains in their designated areas you should be able to please all people all the time. However, I can not see how that is the example of Christ. Jesus, the Christ, never conformed to a lower common denominator in order that people would like Him so He could evangelize them. He had power and love and they yearned for that… or not. Ultimately the choice was theirs. I think when one “travles back and forth” between “acceptable and controversial” behavior it opens “gates” that should remain closed.
2) I think this is very similar to yesterday’s discussion. Some said different customs in different lands, etc. True, absolutely. You (Lindsey) yourself posted about the meat. So are you saying that it stops with eating meat and does not include “dressing modestly”?
Isn’t either causing your brother/sister to fall or not? Regardless of the “category”?
June 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm. Permalink.
Lindsey replied:
Thanks everybody!
Here are some squishy bits, M54.
1) You talk about going down to the lowest common denominator. Jesus didn’t have to go down to it, because he in many ways already was it. He was a human man in a poor trade, born under questionable circumstances. He was laughed at by his peers in his home town when he preached to them. Jesus was an outcast, so he didn’t have to pander to relate to them.
2) The attitude that by going where people are we ourselves are becoming lower is one that would offend the people we would minister to and create a barrier to ministry.
I am no better than my contemporaries under my own power. Through Christ I am redeemed, but by myself I’m just another x-punk who had kids and grew up a little. I’m not good, just redeemed.
And as for your fixation with the modesty issue, allow me to be clear that I myself do not dress like a slut. I don’t show cleavage, I don’t show thigh, I don’t wear oppressively tight clothing. I live in an area where babydoll t-shirts and fitted jeans are seen as immodest, so by the standards of my conservative Mennonite neighbors I may be immodest, but standing next to most girls of my age, weight, and body type I’m practically matronly. Do I take offense when other girls dress more revealingly? No, it’s their body and their choice and if they’ve never been exposed to Christ or Christ’s way one can’t expect any better of them. That is what I mean when I say I have a more relaxed attitude- not that I myself engage in such behaviors but that I tolerate them from others.
And “tolerance” doesn’t mean condoning. When teenage girls ask me what I think about scoop necks and backless shirts, I tell them that if you dress a certain way you’re perceived a certain way, and if you don’t want guys to talk to you like a whore don’t look like one.
June 11, 2008 at 6:35 pm. Permalink.
M54 replied:
Lindsey: As I have said before, I am no wordsmith so I (at times) have some difficulty expressing myself at this keyboard. And (as you know) it is impossible to hear voice inflection or tone in these blogs.
I understand that “Jesus could do no good in His hometown” but being a carpenter in those days was not a poor career choice. I had always thought that the reason Jesus had such a difficult time in His home town was because people were too familiare with Him. They could not see Who He truely was. He wasn’t to fault. And although He was born under “questionable circumstances” He was fully man and fully God.
Here’s where I think I did a poor job of expressing what I meant by trying to reach those who have not yet been reached. I (personally) think it does them a disservice to “become” someone we are not in order to “win them to Christ”. I’m not sure I can do a better job explaining it except to say that His ways are definately higher than our ways. Now, having said that, if you are absolutely convinced that your pursuit is His way of pursuit (you know) that is all you need. Nothing else will ever matter except that.
As far as my “fixation on modesty” I wasn’t talking about you (specifically). In general terms “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak”. Although this passage is speaking of “eating meat” do you think it is specifically relagated to that topic alone? Isn’t it more likely that it includes ALL freedom?
Not that you need any more accolades but I do enjoy reading your blog. You have caused me to revisit some issues and too do additional (ongoing)studies. Thanks.
June 11, 2008 at 7:17 pm. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
I wonder … surely people talked about Mary’s pregnancy? And about who Jesus’ actual father might be?
I wonder if either he or Mary were seen as respectable by many – or not.
Same with Elizabeth and Zechariah [sp?]. Luke says that they were godly people, yet… having no kids was seen as a sign of God’s disfavor, even of willful sin on the part of the adults in question. (In that they must have done something to displease God and were denied children as a result.) I’m willing to bet that there was a lot of talk about them – and about Mary, when she came to visit.
these are just musings on my part – the thoughts aren’t exactly original!
June 11, 2008 at 7:37 pm. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
I live in an area where babydoll t-shirts and fitted jeans are seen as immodest, so by the standards of my conservative Mennonite neighbors I may be immodest, but standing next to most girls of my age, weight, and body type I’m practically matronly.
That’s largely true where I live, and not just among the more conservative Mennonites. (You made me smile when I read your description of “immodest” attire.)
One thought, though: I know that certain words have become commonplace over the past 10-15 years, but I still cringe every time I see or hear them. No slam intended here, Lindsey. (“Slut” and “whore” are 2 of the words I’m thinking of.) Maybe I’m “old,” or too sensitive, I don’t know, but those words strike me as being both wounding and demeaning. I *know* you weren’t using them in that way, too.
Again, just some thoughts, nothing conclusive.
June 11, 2008 at 7:44 pm. Permalink.
Lindsey replied:
M54: Don’t neglect the fact that Jesus was not widely seen as the Messiah until after his death- even John the Baptist questioned his divinity. And as e2c so aptly pointed out, people probably gossiped a lot about Jesus’ conception. All they would have to do is count on their fingers. If Mary knew she was pregnant when Joseph and her were engaged, she had to already be a few months along, and no matter how quickly they were wed Jesus wouldn’t have been born nine months after. And while carpentry is a “mastery” profession and thus not as lowly as a fishermen or shepherd, it certainly didn’t put Jesus into a higher class. He was still a laborer, and as in all societies laborers then were not seen as intellectuals.
Jesus was average. The Bible also says that he had homely features.
These things do matter, because we picture Christ as a clean, laughing, handsome Caucasian, when in reality he was a homely Jew with dirt under his fingernails.
Now as to your saying, “doesn’t the principle still apply”- yes, I agree. I deliberately chose an example that appears to be contradictory to the overall principle in order to make a point- that point being that while you and I shouldn’t do anything to make our brothers stumble (thus me dressing with propriety) that we cannot accuse other people of making us sin. The men in that church had no right to say, “those women are making me sin!” even though the women were perhaps dressing inappropriately. The men still had to be held accountable for giving in to their flesh. The verses are there not for conviction but for protection of the weak, and if your weaker brother does something that causes you to fall into what you know to be sin, you are to be held responsible for yourself. I hope that helps you understand me a little better?
Oh, and e2c: I was actually quoting myself. A girl was complaining to me about how guys constantly “talked to her like a whore”. I was irritated with her and said that if she dressed like a slut (because, seriously, her tops were so tight you could see the outline of her bra) she shouldn’t get angry at the guys and just take responsibility for her own body and her own demeanor. She wore a sweatshirt to group the next week. Heh. (And yes, it is offensive language, even today, but it’s also the kind of “in your face” language girls have started using about themselves to get reactions).
June 11, 2008 at 8:00 pm. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
I had a feeling it might have come from your youth group days, Lindsey.
But I’ve seen a lot of people using terms like “attention whore” who … well, I don’t know what they’re thinking. But your comments didn’t offend me, and I can see why you’d be so direct with a kid – am sure I would say the same (or something similar) if I were in a similar place. But the truth is that some words will always be a bit shocking to me, due to the place and time in which I was reared… even though others might legitimately use them in an inoffensive way…. Which kind of goes along with some of the points you’ve been making over the past couple of days, no? 
June 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm. Permalink.
M54 replied:
Okay, then I understand that we both understand that we (ultimately) are the only ones responsible for where we are (spiritually speaking).
Sorry I’m so thick. I appreciate your time.
June 11, 2008 at 9:47 pm. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
M54, hey… I’m slow on the uptake more than a little, too. (Just came back from a music lesson where that was proved, though it was all fun anyway.)
Like you said earlier, keyboard-only “talking” can be hard – for all of us, I think. I’ve had some real doozies of misunderstandings (where *I* made the mistakes!) here, and recently.
Please keep hanging in here – I like reading your comments.
June 12, 2008 at 12:25 am. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
Oh, by “here,” I was meaning emails people sent to me, but here on Lindsey’s blog, too.
June 12, 2008 at 12:26 am. Permalink.
amberfireinus replied:
I think that this is an interesting topic because it lends itself to so many lessons in the bible.
The words of the bible in so many instances can be interpreted in more than one way. Shakespear too you have to really think and stretch your mind to find understanding and what is being said. The words translated aren’t always in our contemporary use, therefore sometimes their meaning is missed.
I like your instance of modesty. In the Qu’ran, Mohammed says to be “Modest of your person”. This could be interpreted in your dress or your lifestyle or your manner. Some have interpreted it to mean women need to wear full Burquas. Others merely dress to cover their bodies fully. The passages are the same. Held up to each other. Its the interpretation and then on top of that what society deems as modest that come into play.
There was a time in Medeval times where women in the Christian faith were completly covered. They women wore wimples and dressed like nuns. Even showing one’s ankle was considered completely inappropriate and scandalous. In fact it was from Christianity that the burquas came into being. The dress with the headcovering was adopted by the Muslim from Christians.
Another thing of interest that I would like to point out is that the bible’s teachings if you look at them were often out of practicality. What do I mean by this? Well, for example… there was no refridgeration back then. People lived in hot climates. Unless Pork and shellfish are cooked properly they could make you sick and die. Simple, logical. God doesn’t want his children to be sick… so commands you not to eat anything that could poison you. Now of course with proper refridgeration and what we know with science, eating those things isn’t so dangerous. Although many people are still allergic to shellfish. Our moral compass and translation of these commands has changed along with technology. Christians happily eat pork these days! Most eat shellfish too.
Another example would be those same headcoverings (modesty). People didn’t have cars or airconditioning then. They crossed the desert. The desert is a hot place. No headcovering… one gets heat stroke. You die. The rules are placed to protect people from making bad choices and killing themselves.
Do you see where I am going here? The thing about the bible is that you have to take it in its overall context rather than the literal. Because the literal might not be what you think it is. Words can be interpreted in many ways. I think many “Christians” get caught up in what they think of as the literal teachings individually, and miss the true meat and miss the big picture of the entire thought process.
Just my humble opinion…. great post Lindsey.
June 12, 2008 at 5:33 pm. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
amber, regarding what nus wear (or what they used to wear), my understanding of it is that the habits were patterned after what everyone else wore during the Middle Ages (or later), but made plain and simple.
I used to know some nuns who belonged to an order that was founded not long before the French Revolution, and they told me that originally, the women who belonged actually dressed in normal clothes that were worn at that time – but again, very plain and simple, because their founders didn’t want people to even notice that they were nuns. (They worked mostly with the poor.) But I don’t know if the story is 100% true, but it seems pretty believable to me. (Some of the women who founded the order were actually laywomen, which might have something to do with it.)
[/end threadjack
]
June 12, 2008 at 9:12 pm. Permalink.
amberfireinus replied:
e2tc – yes, the dress of nuns today is in fact fashioned to that in those times. The wimple (which was the traditional headdress) of the time was used for fashion etc.
Ever notice that the nuns of contemporary times wear black, white, grey or blue? All of those colors symbolise Christ. Blue for the water he was baptised in, white for the purity of heart and soul, black meaning widow of Jesus, and grey meaning modesty (no color).
It is true that nuns did indeed dress like everyone else at various times in history – some still do, other than covering their heads as respect to God and the bible. Many even wear a cross made of wood, rather than of some fancy material to show poverty.
Symbolism in Christianity is a very fascinating subject – hope this gives you more insight.
June 13, 2008 at 1:53 am. Permalink.
Lindsey replied:
M54: You and I are so different and yet the same. It is fascinating to me.
e2c and Amber: It is interesting to me that nuns clothes were initially not more “conservative” than other women’s, just simpler. Although I did read somewhere that their wimples being flat instead of raised was a bit of a statement, as many other women wore very elaborate wimples with embroidery and fine materials. Nuns defied the fashions of the time by being so simple. And also, I once saw pictures of women who were training to be introduced into Mother Teresa’s order. They wore white gowns with purple trim, and the caption read something like “the white symbolizes the process of purification and the purple represents the promise that they will be brides of Christ. Elder sisters sometimes wear gray to show somberness and humility.”
I’d never known that it was so complex. I joked with my husband that nuns habits must be like Karate belts- they darken over time to show your advancement.
June 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
The Sisters of Charity habit – Mother Teresa’s order – is supposed to resemble a sari, I think… after all, the order was founded in South Asia.
There used to be an incredible variety in the “old” (pre-Vatican II) habits, too. There wasn’t any single kind of wimple or veil (etc.) that was used. Every monastic order has its own distinguishing “uniform,” historically speaking, (Though today most monks and nuns wear street clothes, which is a comparatively new development.)
The order I mentioned above developed out of laymens’ (and womens’) associations, so clearly I think you can assume from that that there was a bit of an affinity with some of the ideas of the “plain” churches (not just yours; Quakers, too).
(PS: although I’m Protestant, I spent a year living with a group of 9 nuns. They were pretty diverse, and really, really dedicated, to Christ and to others.)
June 13, 2008 at 3:25 pm. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
Oops!
Mother Teresa’s order is called the Missionaries of Charity.
(Might not seem like a big deal, but there are so many orders of nuns with the word “charity” in their orders’ names; though I’d better correct myself!
)
June 14, 2008 at 4:26 pm. Permalink.