1 Corinthians 8:1-13
This chapter presents yet another issue that is seriously dividing the Christians in Corinth. One group goes to feasts at the pagan temples and eats the meat there–even though the meat has been prepared in honor of a pagan god (in the form of an idol). Another group is frightened that attending such meals and eating such meat endangers one’s relationship to God by linking the participant to another god and idol-worship. The first group wants Paul to tell the second group that they are being ignorant; other gods don’t really exist, so eating meat sacrificed to an idol means nothing and cannot do any harm.
Very possibly these two groups represent two different socio-economic classes in the Corinthian church. The first group perhaps consists of rich and educated members, well connected with the urban elite, who have a social obligation to go to these temple festivities. Pagan temples were not simply places of worship, they were also gathering places for social life and large banquets. They were the reception halls of the Greco-Roman world. The well-connnected members of the Corinthian church may have felt that participating in these banquets was simply a way of being sociable and maintaining important relational networks. Whether the food had been butchered as part of some pagan ritual to an idol was beside the point for these Christians, because for a Christian meat is simply meat. Those Christians who are afraid of eating meat sacrificed to an idol are simply being superstitious.
The second group perhaps consists of recent pagan converts to the Christian faith who are primarily from the “working class” and slaves. This group doesn’t normally get invited to the banquets at the temple; they are not connected. Their view of what goes on at those banquets is mostly the view of an outsider. Like the first group, they believe that Israel’s God is the only true God, but unlike the first group they believe that idols represent other spiritual powers. So to attend a banquet at a pagan temple, and eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, is to become connected to spiritual powers at odds with the true God.
Paul reponds to this controversy in a disarming way. In effect he says to the first group, “You have knowledge, but the point of the Christian faith is to have love.” If having a more sophistcated theology causes us to put down those with a less sophisticated theology, then we do not have the kind of “knowledge” that really counts. What matters is not how much we know about God, but whether God knows us; and God knows us when we love.
Paul reframes this debate by saying that it is beside the point determining who is right and who is wrong. The Christian community is not served by identifying winners and losers in a debate. As in marriage, there is no such thing as “winning an argument” when we are bound together in community. As soon as you have won an argument, you have lost part of the relationship. If at all possible, conflicts should be resolved in such a way that all are honored and all are built up. For instance, in pre-marital counseling I always tell couples that they should always seek a win-win solution.
Paul also brings in another factor–the role of conscience. Do not tempt others to go against their conscience even if you think their conscience is based on faulty assumptions. When we violate our own belief-system, doing what we believe to be morally or spiritually wrong, we are indeed harming ourselves. So Paul says to the first group, have enough love and respect for the beliefs and conscience of these other Christians that you do not cause them to sin against their own conscience by joining you in an activity that you believe is harmless but they believe is wrong. Paul goes so far as to say that he himself would be willing to refrain from eating all meat if that would prevent a fellow-Christian from wounding his or her conscience.
This particular issue is no longer relevant for us today, but we face other issues in the church that may have some valid parallels; and in these cases, Paul’s principles are still quite relevant and helpful. Various Christian groups take different stands on where to draw the line on participating in popular social events that have pagan associations. For instance, today is Halloween, and many Christians object to participating in its rituals of dressing up as ghosts and goblins, which are leftovers from its pagan origins. Other Christians view it as a harmless activity with no spiritual meaning. Some Christians object to the secularized Santa rituals of the Christmas season, while others regard it as simple fun.
Does reading Harry Potter books make one more vulnerable to accepting withcraft? Is playing with a Ouiji board a spiritually dangerous activity?
Also, Christians wrestle with public rituals of national allegiance–saying the pledge or singing the national anthem. Do these, or do these not, represent a division and blurring of our allegiance to God?
Some of these questions we may regard as silly, and some as quite serious. I do not know where Paul himself would have stood on all of these questions. But I think he would tell us to refrain from making fun of each other’s conscience. He also would tell us to build each other up.
This does not mean that the church must be held hostage to those with the most strict and narrow conscience. It does not mean we must all, whether we like it or not, refrain from activities other Christians are bothered by. But–unless it’s an issue of doing necessary justice–we should avoid giving unnecessary public offense. And we should honor each other’s conscience.
