Hagia Sophia, once the largest church in the world, had its Christian mosaic work restored in the 1930s, when it became a museum in the 1930s, under the then Turkish leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, after being converted to a mosque, in the 15th century. Now it is becoming a mosque again.
Here is a short video on the background history regarding Hagia Sophia:
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past twenty years or so, you will know that some elements of Western culture have been chipping away at the classic, historical Scriptural distinction between male and female. Some well-meaning, well-intentioned folks, even in the church, have been encouraging this movement along, in some unfortunately unhelpful ways.
Granted, for the past hundred years, many evangelical egalitarians have sought to restore a sense of balance, by advocating for more women in church leadership, at the local church level, by citing Paul’s “magna carta” passage Galatians 3:28. In general, most Christians support this understanding, at some level:
The original context for Paul’s writing in Galatians is to address who can and can not be baptized, in the church. For Paul, gender is no prohibition to baptism, as opposed to something like circumcision, which was just for Jewish males. But many Christians today have appealed to Galatians 3:28, as having a broader application, advancing causes, such has encouraging women to serve as elders in the local church. Such proponents of this interpretation contend that Paul is eliminating the distinction between male and female, when it come to exercising spiritual authority, in the local church.
This is a disputable matter, in much of evangelicalism today (though for some, on either side of the debate, the issue is “indisputable,” favoring their particular reading of the Bible). Many are quite correct to say that there need not be a slippery slope here, away from more difficult matters concerning gender. I would agree.
Yet it is amazing to see how many corners of the church manage to find creative ways of sliding here, anyway. At one level, it is understandable. There is still sexism in the church. Correcting past wrongs is something all Christians need to pursue, and Galatians 3:28 has an appropriate application here. Affirming the gifts of both women and men, for ministry, is essential. But it is also very easy to go too far with Galatians 3:28, and get caught up in extremism.
For example, quite a few in the church now appeal to Galatians 3:28 as sanctioning same-sex marriage, and a growing number are now affirming transgenderism, in such a way, as to go beyond the traditional understanding of gender dysphoria, as a psychological condition. Such a broad range of advocates all agree, in putting forward the thesis, that gender is no big deal to God, though the applications differ. Along with the surrounding culture, such advocates now treat gender as merely being a social construct, even to the point of denying the traditional basics of human biology, which is an attack on modern science.
Just recently, I heard the newest argument, being advanced in at least one mainline Protestant, or what some would call “progressive Christian” circle, that Paul’s teaching in Galatians 3:28 is actually CONTRADICTING the teaching in Genesis, regarding humans being created in the image of God: male and female, God created humanity. Underlying this belief is the assumption that because male and female are inherently equal, male and female are therefore inherently interchangeable.
Here is the crucial passage, that Paul is supposedly contradicting:
Has gender really become irrelevant today?
Regardless of how this question is answered, what it clearly has become, is a free speech matter, in the surrounding culture. Consider the “cancel culture” attempt to silence Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling. Rowling voiced her concerns that some elements of the transgender movement are harming women, and she paid dearly for making such statements. Yet Rowling is not alone.
Journalists and academics are now finding that their careers are under threat, if they do not bow to the “new orthodoxy” advanced by “critical theory.” Note that it is not specifically conservative evangelicals, who find themselves under threat. These are also liberal, secular minded people, including atheists and agnostics, who nevertheless share the historical Christian claim, and scientific observation, that there is a distinction between male and female. Christians therefore, should be careful not to lump all “liberals” into the same basket. Some of these leftward leaning, secular thinkers recently signed an open letter in Harper’s Magazine, urging that all respect the freedom of speech, including statements that claim that gender actually matters, and that gender is not merely a social construct.
Let me be clear: We should not overreact, as some have unfortunately done (The recent debacle that has almost destroyed one of my favorite podcasts, the Mortification of Spin, is a good example of extremism, on the conservative evangelical side).
Instead, we should encourage women to use their gifts for leadership and ministry in the church. We should affirm justice in society (including those areas pertaining to race). We should encourage those who experience same-sex attraction to have a solid network of supportive friendships, as they seek to honor God regarding their sexuality. We should also have compassion on and extend grace towards those who are experiencing gender dysphoria.
But let us also be united in affirming the teaching of Scripture: We were created in the image of God, male and female. This means that while male and female are indeed equal, they are not interchangeable. This is a mystery that reflects the very character of God. It is vital for the church to uphold a means of honoring that distinction, within the structure of corporate worship, and the Christian life.
Affirming the unity of our baptism into Christ’s church does not go against the rest of Scripture. So, let us stop misusing Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28 in a misguided effort at supposedly “contradicting” Genesis.
Canadian psychologist and Harvard professor Steven Pinker is now among the latest to have experienced threats from the “cancel culture” mob. While I do not share professor Pinker’s atheism, nor his missteps regarding history, as a Christian I fully support his efforts to protect free speech. As Christians, we should honor those values that encourage open debate and wide ranging discussion, without fear of retribution:
Critics of the Bible will often point out discrepancies between different Scriptural accounts to be evidence of contradictions in the Bible. A classic case involves differences between Matthew’s account and Luke’s account of the death of Judas Iscariot. In a 2019 debate, critical scholar Bart Ehrman presses the contradiction claim against evangelical Bible scholar, Peter Williams.
Peter Williams’ explanation of what might have happened, in reconciling these accounts, parallels the answer given by Answers in Genesis’ Georgia Purdom. While the standard Williams/Purdom explanation does have a measure of plausibility, I must admit that Bart Ehrman has a point here. Given enough range of possibilities, you can pretty much resolve just about any contradiction.
But some attempts to harmonize the text do not always convince everyone. In Matthew, Judas hangs himself before any mention of the purchase of a field. In Luke-Acts, Judas dies in the field, after he had just bought the field. It is possible that Judas acquired the field, in some manner, before hanging himself, and then afterwards, the chief priests repurchased the field. But the events still seem a bit disconnected. Furthermore, it seems strange that Luke would not have reminded his readers that Judas had hung himself.
I would not want to totally dismiss the Williams/Purdom explanation, but it does border on being ad hoc. Might there be a better resolution to this discrepancy, that has better explanatory power? I think there is, but you have to think a bit “out of the box” to get there.
New Testament scholar Michael Licona has written about the use of compositional devices, that were commonly characteristic of the Greco-Roman bios genre, typical of 1st century literature. Some of those compositional devices would not sound typical for modern readers, particularly those compositional devices that have a more metaphorical understanding behind them. But if we consider the Gospels as examples of such bios literary genre, this might resolve the Judas death discrepancy more satisfactorily. Licona’s critics have accused him of undermining biblical inerrancy, but it is ironically more likely that the supposed defenders of a more strict view of inerrancy, have made it more difficult for the Bible to be defended.
YouTube apologist Michael Jones, a.k.a. Inspiring Philosophy, brings Licona’s insights to bear on the death of Judas conundrum. In the days of King David, Ahithophel deserted David and plotted against the king, in support of Absalom. But when Ahithophel realized that the plot against David would fail, he hung himself (see 2 Samuel 17, especially verse 23). It is possible that Matthew might have used the hanging of Ahithophel as a metaphorical way of saying that Judas was yet another Ahithophel.
This would have been consistent with the practice of Greco-Roman bios to use figures of speech, that may not be obvious to the modern reader. In other words, perhaps Judas did not actually hang himself, but he could have committed suicide in a manner more like it is described by Luke, early in the Book of Acts. This idea is supported by evidence in the Gospel of John, where John alludes to Judas’ betrayal as being like the betrayal of Ahithophel (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18).
If you liked that video, you should review some of the hundred(s) of other YouTube videos at Inspiring Philosophy, that addresses supposed “Bible contradictions.” Michael Jones is one of the new brilliant “Young Apologists” (my way of saying it), that some are calling the “Apologetics Empire.”
New Testament scholar Michael Licona goes at it himself from a slightly different angle, suggesting that Matthew is actually describing a hanging here, and that it is Luke instead who is using a figure of speech, of Judas “falling headlong,” as a metaphorical way of saying that Judas’ career was “going downhill” at that point.
What I would conclude here is that there are a variety of possible resolutions to this classic Bible discrepancy, but that allowing for the use of metaphor and figure of speech, where something has been traditionally interpreted in a non-metaphorical sense, might actually be a better, more plausible and even probable way to resolve such difficulties.
Any thoughts Veracity readers?
How Vince Lombardi’s emphasis on the fundamentals can help Christian discipleship in our churches
Do you know what you believe as a Christian?
Growing up in a mainline Protestant denomination, I heard very little about what it meant to have a personal relationship with Jesus. It was not until my teenage experience in an evangelical youth ministry, that I learned about that.
However, I did go through a process called “confirmation,” in order to become a full member of the Episcopal Church. In those classes, I was required to memorize the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles Creed. I never made the connection between memorizing a bunch of words and actually becoming or being a Christian. For years thereafter, I tended to dismiss such rudimentary training as meaningless, a rote memorization process, with an emphasis on doctrine over and against pure devotion to Christ.
But I have since rethought that negative assessment. Granted, my training as a youth was rather incomplete, but at least it was something. Even though many liberal Protestants undermine such training, by rejecting classic doctrines of the Christian faith, at least such training was there, in the liberal Protestant tradition. Even in other traditions, such as in Roman Catholicism, there has been a revival in recent decades to emphasize educating, not just children, but adults as well, in basic rudiments of the Christian faith. In order to become an adult member of the Roman Catholic Church, you are required to attend several months of classes, known as the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). Some of these classes can last a year, or more!
Now, compare that to what you typically find in an evangelical Protestant church (of course, there are exceptions here). Let us say that you come to a new church, and you make it through the first few weeks of visits. You might be asked to consider joining a small group Bible study. Some might be encouraged to become a “member” of that church. But what is involved with that? In many cases, the process to become a member is quite easy: Just share your testimony, read the statement of faith (assuming there is one), and talk to the church leaders, to see if you might have any questions about that statement of faith. Sign on the dotted line, and you are in. In just a matter of weeks. Easy-peazy.
Compare that to what was typical in the early years of the Christian movement, the period of explosive growth in Christianity from about the 2nd to the 5th centuries. Candidates for Christian baptism would often go through an instructional process, that could last up to three years, before a newly professed believer would be accepted for baptism. This instructional process has been called catechesis, which originally meant “oral instruction” in the faith. Such rigorous catechesis was necessary because so many of those early believers came from very diverse backgrounds, and often lacked basic knowledge of the Bible.
During the Middle Ages, the practice of catechesis tended to fall out of favor. After all, nearly “everyone” in those days professed to be a Christian. Having Christianity as the established religion of the Roman Empire made that pretty easy. But by the time we get to the Protestant Reformation, the need for catechesis was so overwhelming, it could not be ignored. In a letter to a Protestant colleague in England, in 1548, the great French/Swiss reformer John Calvin remarked, “Believe me, Monseigneur, the Church of God will never be preserved without catechesis.” Different catechesis traditions were developed, to train up believers in the faith, such as the Heidelberg Catechism and later, the Westminster Catechism. The success of the Protestant evangelical movement, led by a comparatively small consortium of Reformer intellectuals and pastors, like Luther and Calvin, was fueled by the consistent application of catechesis methods, to train the congregational masses.
But as J. I. Packer and Gary A. Parrett (a former student of Packer’s) write in Grounded in the Gospel: Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way, the practice of catechesis in Protestant evangelical churches has suffered a serious decline over the past century. Part of the reason why catechesis has dropped off the radar, for many evangelical churches, is due to conflicting catechesis methods and teachings.
Different catechesis content has been associated with “denominationalism.” So, because nearly every denomination has their own “pet doctrines,” that they like to promote, the reaction in some interdenominational or non-denominational settings is to reject the whole project of catechesis altogether, and try to keep everybody from arguing with one another all of the time. We avoid doctrinal disputation, because it might come across as sounding “unloving.”
In place of catechesis, many evangelical churches have simply substituted in the telling of Bible stories, especially in teaching children, as a supposedly safe way of avoiding doctrinal controversy. The sad irony about this is that the Christian faith has witnessed its greatest decline during this same time period, when catechesis has fallen out of favor. It is as though the contemporary evangelical church has come close to the theological shallowness of the late medieval church, that precipitated the crisis of the Protestant Reformation, in the early 16th century.
History has an odd way of repeating itself.
I know of pastors who metaphorically wring their hands, wrestling with the fact that so many church members are not out there sharing their faith, and serving for Christ in their community. Some pastors assume that their church membership knows a lot, but that they do not do much with their faith. Perhaps if folks join small groups, or get involved in various other activities in the church, they might be compelled to put their faith in action more.
Not every pastor’s grief is like this, but it is a common narrative, in some circles. I share the same concern, but I do not buy into the narrative that assumes that church members know a lot, but just are not doing enough. Rather, we have it backwards. Christian are not doing enough, because they do not know why they believe what they believe.
I should clarify here. It is very tempting then to think that the lack of knowing why Christians believe certain things is the fundamental problem. The area of knowing why you believe what you believe is the task of apologetics. We need to do better at this, surely. But apologetics is not the fundamental problem. A more fundamental problem is that many Christians in our churches simply do not know what they believe… or at least, the experience of learning to know what they believe is uneven, in many churches today. Correcting the problem of helping Christians to know what they believe is the task of catechesis.
Some churches have great education programs, but not everyone participates in such programs. Many Christians are involved in great small groups, where they are being challenged to grow more and more in their faith. But many other Christians have no such small group experience, or they are involved in small groups that really do not help them go deeper in their faith. In other words, the catechesis experience in many contemporary evangelical churches is uneven, at best.
So, what is the answer then? To put it bluntly, churches need to commit themselves to the process of training Christians, across all ages and categories of church involvement, in the rudiments of the faith, on a continual basis. Or, at the very least, some type of catechesis training is necessary for becoming church members. Great sermons, great small groups, and great Christian education classes (like Sunday School) will surely help, but a more fundamental approach is necessary.
An analogy might help here. What made the Green Bay Packers, of the early 1960s, one of the greatest teams in the history of American professional football? It all came down to how their coach, Vince Lombardi, emphasized the fundamentals. In the summer of 1961, Lombardi had just coached a group of seasoned veterans, to nearly win the championship, which they had just narrowly lost. But Lombardi would not assume that his experienced players knew everything. He started at the beginning, with the fundamentals. He famously gathered his team together, for training camp, and held up a pigskin in his right hand and said, “Gentlemen, this is a football.”
A few of the players snickered at Lombardi. After all, they all knew what football was all about. They were all professional football players! But Lombardi persisted, and he emphasized the basics of blocking and tackling. By the end of the season, the Packers beat the New York Giants 37-0, to win the championship. Lombardi would go onto lead the Green Bay Packers in a long stream of championship victories, throughout the 1960s.
The analogy should be clear. We should not assume that church members know what they believe. Instead, as part of the membership process and/or even something incorporated into the foundational practices of the church, evangelical churches should institute a catechesis, to help believers better understand the basics of the faith.
Let me address a few important objections to the practice of catechesis. First, some do not like the idea of catechesis because it sounds like doing something in a ritualistic fashion. Some Protestants might take this a step further and complain that catechesis sounds a bit “too Catholic.” But simply reciting a question and answer does not necessarily imply saying something purely for the sake of memorizing it. Rather it is meant to stimulate thinking: When I say that I am a Christian, what does that exactly entail? When I say I believe in Jesus, what does that really mean? To ponder the depths of our faith is meant to ground us in a Gospel way of thinking. As to the complaint of it being “too Catholic,” we should bear in mind the possibility that this is an area where Roman Catholics have much to teach those Protestants, who have an aversion to contemplating sound doctrine.
Secondly, some do not like using a catechism as it tends to focus on telling people what to think as opposed to how to think. That is a good point, but catechesis need not be used that way. Instead, a better use of a catechism would be to create a springboard to further discussion. Most catechisms aim at being pithy and simple, mainly to make them more acceptable for use with children. But pithy and simple need not discourage more thoughtful reflection. Instead, a good catechism should include resources, such as passages of Scripture, that can be looked up to see how well the catechism lines up with what the Bible actually says. No catechism is 100% perfect. But if they lead the Christian to have a greater knowledge and confidence in what they believe, then the effort of learning a catechism becomes worth it.
Grounded in the Gospel: Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way, by J. I. Packer and Gary Parrett, make a compelling case for retrieving catechesis, for today’s evangelical churches.
There are three practical suggestions to make here, to move forward in the area of catechisis. First, it would be to read Packer and Parrett’s Grounded in the Gospel: Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way. J . I. Packer is one of the great statesmen of the contemporary evangelical movement. In the Grounded in the Gospel, one of Packers’ last books, written in 2010, Packer along with Parrett, lay out the need for evangelical churches to revive the practice of catechesis, and offer some help in trying to navigate what that would look like in the everyday life of the church.
I find it significant, that in the waning years of Packer’s life, now that he is essentially blind, and no longer able to read and write books, that he would, after looking back on decades of service to the church, challenge evangelical churches to reconsider catechesis, as the means by which a local church, over the long haul, can reinvigorate its ministry and outreach into their community. In Grounded in the Gospel, the chapter on the history of how catechesis was conducted by the early church, as well as during the early years of the Reformation, makes the book particularly challenging and helpful.
Secondly, here might be a good way to help churches out, when going through the process of becoming a member of a church: Require that prospective members obtain a sponsor. The early church adopted the practice of having a baptized, mature Christian adopt a prospective candidate for baptism, as a type of sponsor. The advantage of having a sponsor is two-fold: (1) It is less burdensome for those reviewing candidates for membership, such as elders and/or pastors in the church, to always be responsible for every aspect of catechesis. Having another church member vouch for a membership candidate’s testimony, and their knowledge of basic Christian doctrine, helps to distribute the load in the catechesis process. (2) It is less intimidating, when a church membership candidate comes before a group of elders/pastors, to have a friend and sponsor accompany them, if they so request. Having a sponsor should not necessarily assume a long term commitment. But it can help the prospective new member become more integrated into the warmth and life of the community.
Thirdly, what would be a good example of catechesis, for the contemporary evangelical church? Specifically, what about a catechesis for an interdenominational church, where confessional differences, over non-essential matters of the faith, are honored and respected? I would suggest a good look at the New City Catechism, developed by Redeemer Presbyterian Church, under the sound leadership of Pastor Timothy Keller. Keller started one of the most dynamic and growing churches in New York City, and he and others took some older catechisms and modified them for contemporary use, which can be incorporated into growing churches.
There are several things I really like about the New City Catechism. First, the catechism is broken down into 52 question and answer sections, which could easily be inserted into a weekly worship service, with the cycle to be repeated every year. Read a question, and its answer, as a congregation, and that is it. A pastor friend of mine uses the New City Catechism in their weekly worship services, and each Q&A lesson only lasts a couple of minutes.
That may not seem like a significantly impactful chunk of time, per service, but that is the point. A lot of churches are hesitant to add something new into the weekly worship service, because of other priorities. But inserting a 2-3 minute segment into the weekly worship service, dedicated to catechesis for the whole church, adults and children, is a reasonable way of approaching catechesis, without becoming unnecessarily burdensome. However, the long term benefit is what should be aimed for, for if you do these 2-3 minute segments every week, year after year, you are reinforcing a model of Christian instruction, that should pay off, over the long haul, with an increased vision for Christian discipleship, throughout the whole congregation.
The other thing I like about the New City Catechism is that there are excellent resources available to go deeper, for each Q&A section. The Gospel Coalition has audio resources, including a “children’s mode,” a shortened, even simpler version of the catechism, which is very useful. Furthermore, Kathy Keller, wife of Timothy Keller, has an excellent introduction. Want videos? The New City Catechism website has them as well.
What is there not to like about the New City Catechism? Well, for some, a few things … perhaps. As a minor point, the name “New City” has an urban flavor to it that might not ring well for non-urbanites. But more substantially, the New City Catechism is a trimmed down, more ecumenically appealing version of the Westminster or Heidelberg Catechisms. In other words, there is at least a modest emphasis on certain Reformed teachings, in the New City Catechism, that may rub some evangelicals the wrong way.
But such criticism misses the point of what something like the New City Catechism is meant to achieve. Instead of being a mechanism that stops conversation, the aim is quite the opposite. Rather, it is an invitation to further discussion and inquiry. There is enough breadth in many of the answers, involving possibly controversial topics, that it is only natural for catechism readers to begin to ask questions, which hopefully will encourage them to spend more time in Scripture, to dig out out more nuanced, detailed answers, that simply can not be summed up in a pithy Q&A collection like this.
For example, in question 25, “Does Christ’s Death Mean All Our Sins Can Be Forgiven?,” the language of “imputation” is used in the answer, which might puzzle those who favor more the “New Perspective on Paul” (assuming someone even knows what that is!!). But there need not be an either/or dichotomy here, as indicated by how the answer is framed: “Yes, because Christ’s death on the cross fully paid the penalty for our sin, God graciously imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as if it were our own and will remember our sins no more.” That peculiar word “imputes” is used here, but it is not expansively defined. The answer does not dig into the more technical aspect of imputing Christ’s active obedience vs. His passive obedience. Rather, the answer offers an invitation to further discussion, without straying from orthodox belief (SIDE NOTE: Grounded in the Gospel has a very balanced discussion of this particular “hot” theological topic, in our day, and its relationship to catechesis).
Here is one more example: In question 28, “What Happens After Death to Those Not United to Christ by Faith?,” the answer attempts to summarize various Scriptural ideas about hell. Christians today wrestle with the nature of hell; for example, is it a place of conscious eternal torment, or a place where the wicked will be eventually annihilated? A short answer might not seem nuanced enough. But the language of the answer creates a sense of wonder: “At the day of judgment they will receive the fearful but just sentence of condemnation pronounced against them. They will be cast out from the favorable presence of God, into hell, to be justly and grievously punished, forever.” How are all of these various phrases tied together? What does each one mean, in particular? Again, here is an opportunity to dig into the various Scripture passages referenced by the question, which serves as an invitation for further discussion.
On the other side, long time users of catechism many not like the New City Catechism, as it may not be Reformed enough for them. Sticking with something like the Heidelberg Catechism, would probably be better. London pastor Andrew Wilson, one of my favorite Bible teachers, blogged through the 52 weeks of the Heidelberg Catechism a few years ago, and I find his short reflections exceedingly helpful. Each one can be read in just a couple of minutes each. (Wilson wisely omits the sadly controversial question 80, that was inserted after the catechism was originally devised).
But the target audience for something like the New City Catechism is for those Christians who have no clue as to what catechesis even is. Of course, a church can simply branch out and develop their own catechism, that fits the needs of their particular congregation.
The downside to doing this is that you are pretty much trying to reinvent the wheel. Tim Keller’s church planting efforts show that the New City Catechism, which has been around for almost a decade, is an effective, low-impact tool for training a congregation in the basics of the Christian faith. Whether or not a church uses an already defined catechism, or creates their own, the point is that every church should have a means of instructing their membership, on the basics of the faith.
Implementing some type of catechism is desperately needed in our churches today. It is not just for children. It is for adults, too. At the very least, catechesis needs to be an integral part for becoming a member of a local church. The process of catechesis is designed to address systemic issues in the educational efforts of a local church, where basic knowledge of the Christian faith is typically not uniformly present, across the whole church body. Read Packer and Parrett’s Grounded in the Gospel: Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way. Spend some time going through the New City Catechism.
The irony here is that our increasingly post-Christian world is looking a whole lot like the world of the early church, in those critical first few centuries. Religious pluralism is just as rampant today as it was in the period of the early church. The misunderstanding of Christianity, and even moments of persecution of Christians, mark our world today, just as it did in the early church world. However, today’s evangelical church has not picked up on the critical lesson of the importance of catechesis. We do not necessarily need a full three years of catechism training for receiving baptism, as the early church frequently did. But we do need something.
One final thought: some Christians are hesitant about catechesis, because they fear that an emphasis on doctrine will undercut our love for one another. But a word from the Apostle Paul should remind us that sound doctrine and genuine, loving Christian fellowship go hand in hand, as we go about “abounding in thanksgiving“:
Take a lesson from Coach Vince Lombardi.
What is your church doing in the area of catechesis?
Many Christians today insist that because we have freedom in Christ, we have the freedom to do any number of things, such as drinking alcohol. But there are times where the exercise of such freedom fails to seek “the good of our neighbor.”
Followers of Jesus possess tremendous freedom, because of the Gospel. The problem comes in determining if and when exercising that freedom might cause harm to others, or foster unnecessary division in the church.
The issue was driven home to me more than a few years ago, when I served in youth ministry. Some adult friends of mine invited me to go to a sports bar/restaurant, nearby a local college campus. My friends wanted to know if I would like to split a pitcher of beer.
Though I am close to being a teetotaler, I have never been super strict about it. After all, Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding. I figured, the Gospel gives me tremendous freedom in Christ. The Bible forbids drunkenness, but there is no direct prohibition against alcohol in general. There is effectively nothing wrong with sharing a pitcher of beer, with a bunch of friends, in a public restaurant. So, I was in!
No sooner had the pitcher of beer arrived at our table, that one of the guys in my youth group showed up and said, “Hi!” It turned out that this restaurant was frequented by a few of the underaged guys in my youth group. I quickly noticed that he took one glance at the pitcher of beer, and another glance at me with a cup of beer in my hand. After exchanging some small talk, he made a fast exit.
I realized that I had made a mistake.
There were a number of guys like him in the youth group, who came from families where alcohol abuse was a serious problem. I had no such history in my family, nor in my immediate sphere of friends. But for this teenager, the potential threat of fallout from alcohol abuse was just around the corner.
The faith stability of this particular guy, who saw me that night, troubled me. He had shown interest in deep spiritual matters, but I could sense that he was confused about the conflicting messages he was hearing around him, among his peers, his family, and in the youth group. I could tell that the wheels were churning in his head, as he watched me take a sip of my cheap beer (It was not even that good! I could have had a decent micro-brew instead!).
I kept running through my mind what I should say to that young guy, the next time I saw him: I could mention that I am normally a teetotaler. I could launch into a speech about the importance of responsible drinking. I could tell him that Jesus turned water into wine.
But I never had that chance.
I never saw that kid come back to the youth group again.
Alas, I really enjoy the freedom I have in Christ. But that incident was a wake-up call for me. Sometimes, the exercise of my freedom does not benefit others. In fact, it stands a good chance of needlessly harming relationships.
The Apostle Paul faced a similar problem at the church in Corinth. Food that was often used for pagan rituals could also be found in the marketplace as leftovers, to be taken home and shared at meals with neighbors and friends. Paul opposed the idea of eating food sacrificed to idols, as part of a ritual ceremony. But when it came to sharing a meal with an unbelieving friend, where such food might be present, this was a “disputable matter,” among Christians in the Corinthian church.
Many of the Corinthian Christians had a Gentile background, and probably saw nothing wrong with eating such food. But others might have reacted differently. Some probably rejected the eating of such food, out of principle, to set themselves apart from the culture. Others probably wrestled with this, having had a pagan background, whereby they could be easily led back into their former pagan ways of living and thinking. Others were perhaps from a strict Jewish background, whereby any hint of eating such food would have been forbidden, as a sign of giving into idolatry.
So, what was Paul’s response?
In this particular passage, Paul begins by quoting those in Corinth, who championed the cause of Christian liberty. “All things are lawful,” they would say. There was no hint of legalism in the Church at Corinth. I could even imagine some of them saying that they were led by the “Holy Spirit” to exercise their freedom, in all of its fullness.
But Paul issues a gentle yet firm warning. Yes, there is Christian liberty, but not all things are helpful…. not all things build up, and edify your fellow believer. He continues with some practical advice, that are broken down here into four paragraphs:
SECOND: If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his.
THIRD: For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
FOURTH: So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.’ (1 Corinthians 10:25-33 ESV)
In the first paragraph, Paul acknowledges the case for freedom. He encourages the Corinthians to go easy on themselves and with others, and not lead up to some unnecessary offense. After all, “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof,” so everything created by God is good indeed. Therefore, we can be thankful that we have the freedom to eat whatever God provides for us.
But as the second paragraph shows, Paul considers the case of a believer being invited to dinner, but the unbelieving host tests to see if idolatry really matters to that believer. Paul instructs that if you are informed that “this has been offered in sacrifice,” then the believing guest should refrain from participation in the meal. The main concern is not about the conscience of the guest invited to the meal, but rather, about the conscience of the one serving the food.
The third paragraph, starting as “For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?…,” is sometimes confusing, as it seems like it might be contradicting what Paul just said, in the second paragraph. But many commentators suggest that Paul is recalling what he said at the first paragraph of the passage above, namely that God has given freedom to the believer. Paul affirms that yes, indeed, the believer has been given freedom in Christ. He does not want to see his teaching in the second paragraph misconstrued as a denial of Christian freedom.
Nevertheless, Paul remains undeterred in making his point in the fourth and final paragraph. Paul ties up everything he stated by reminding the believer that we should “do all to the glory of God,” and avoid making unnecessary offense to others. “I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.” The exercise of that very freedom should not be thought of as an excuse for harming others.
Paul’s case study is very specific. But the application of the central principle, ‘“All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor,’ has sweeping ramifications. In seeking the “good of his neighbor,” Paul has in mind not only relations with those outside of the church, but also relations within the church, when it comes to those “disputable matters,” that can so easily divide us.
Some Christians have thought that Romans 14 is the only passage that discusses “disputable matters” in the church. But both passages, the section from 1 Corinthians 10 highlighted here and Romans 14 both deal with the controversy over eating food sacrificed to idols, despite framing the argument slightly differently in each passage.
Actually, Paul goes more into depth here, within the larger context of 1 Corinthians 8-10, to make his point about “disputable matters.” Paul’s overall argument is that while he felt that he surely had the right to do any number of things, the exercise of such a right was not absolute. Paul was conscious of his actions, and he kept his sense of “entitlement,” as a follower of Jesus in check, less the exercise of his freedoms might become a stumbling block to others. There was a tension that Paul had to live with, as the Gentiles surely felt offended by a number of the beliefs and practices of the Jews, and the Jews likewise were offended by certain Gentile particularities. Paul summarized it like this:
No one likes to think of themselves as being “weak,” but identifying who is the “weak” and who is the “strong” is not the issue. His point is about not putting an unnecessary stumbling block in the path of someone else’s faith journey.
This teaching can be very difficult. For the legalist, Paul’s notion of freedom might come across as too loosey-goosey. But for the anti-legalist, Paul might come across as being too concerned with offending others.
However, these are both wrong-headed ways of understanding Paul. Paul’s main concern is two-fold: (1) He wants to avoid unnecessary division within the church. The Corinthian believers were divided enough as it was. Likewise, Paul encourages us neither to abuse our freedoms, at the expense of others, nor to place heavy burdens on others, that are too difficult to bear. (2) Paul also wants to clear out any and all obstacles for the furtherance of the Gospel, when reaching out to non-believers. Or, to put it another way, we can not make demands on the consciences of others, but we can make demands on a Christian’s charity towards others.
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.(Romans 14:1 NIV, photo credit: Anglicans Ablaze)
It is not always clear as to what counts as a “disputable matter.” Most Christians would put the issue of drinking alcohol in this category. Others would put doctrinally volatile issues, like the freedom to exercise charismatic gifts, and the freedom of having women serving as elders in a local church, in this list, too. Others may not. Nevertheless, the principle that Paul lays down shows us how we are to handle “disputable matters,” whatever they are, when they arise.
Such “disputable matters,” like the issues faced in the church at Corinth, have the potential to sadly divide Christians today in our churches. Furthermore, those outside of the church make note of when Christians divide amongst themselves, and are generally not impressed when this happens. Granted, we need not fear all division, as sometimes division does happen among believers, when the Word of God is compromised.
But not all division in churches is inevitable, nor is all such division particularly helpful and edifying. Taking a closer look at how the Apostle Paul handles such matters, by acknowledging the freedom we have in Christ, while yet cautioning the exercise of such freedom, is the wisest path to follow. God calls us to hold back on our freedoms, when such restraint is called for, for the sake of the good of our neighbors. Those neighbors include our unbelieving friends, as well as believers in our fellowship.
This topic addresses broader issues of conscience. What is a Christian conscience, anyway? For an excellent study on the matter, I would recommend Conscience: What It Is, How To Train It, and Loving Those Who Differ, by Andy Naselli & J.D. Crowley, a book reviewed here on Veracity.
 | Marcenampm on Ancient Israel’s Women o… |
 | Clarke Morledge on Was Winston Churchill a Warmon… |
 | David on Did Abraham Receive the Call t… |
| Clarke Morledge on Was Winston Churchill a Warmon… |
| The Phenomenal Field… on Is the Kingdom of God (Mystica… | |
| Clarke Morledge on Christmas in Europe: Ypres and… |
| Clarke Morledge on The Real Indiana Jones: Kennet… |
| Clarke Morledge on The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzge… |
 | wingeda9c299e8f2 on Did Abraham Receive the Call t… |
| Clarke Morledge on Will the Rapture Happen on Sep… |
 | Ms J Ireland on Oliver Cromwell’s Crisis |
 | Jerry on Will the Rapture Happen on Sep… |
| Jerry on Will the Rapture Happen on Sep… |
| Jerry on Will the Rapture Happen on Sep… |
| Shari Meyer on Elisabeth Elliot: A Life, Beco… |
Veracity 