Test for [[Echo]] Thoughts from 1 Corinthians
April 16, 2007
Does anybody come here anymore? Is this thing on??
Here are some thoughts on what we talked about Sunday in SS about 1 Corinthians and some stuff that maybe we can explore in future SS classes or maybe on this board. Tell me if I am way off here. . .I am really curious about what others think.
1.] The typical evangelical view of “separation” in light of 1Cor. 5:9-13
2.] The “weaker brother stumbling” business of chapter 8.
Regarding “separation”
It is fascinating to me to see that in most evangelical circles the clear teaching of 1Cor. 5:9-13 has not been ignored but COMPLETELY inverted. We are scared of/revolted by/attempt to be isolated from the world, [which Paul points out as really ridiculous] while sin goes relatively unchecked among believers. Oh, our sin is obvious to unbelievers but not to us. Beyond how this inversion really undercuts our ability as the church from being a redemptive agent in the world, as if that wasn’t enough to ponder, one is also left with the difficult task of how to rightly apply:
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
This would seem to cut into the attendance of pot-luck suppers. Seriously, how do we live this out? This passage freaks me out. In a typical week I am probably all of those things. . . often in the same day. . .and I am really nervous about making any judgment about whether another believer is being greedy or idolatrous. Bottom line I guess, at least on some level and in some way, we are called on to take sin in the body of Christ very seriously, and conversely, perhaps not to bother boycotting Disney. Whatever Paul is talking about, it is seems a long long way from “church discipline” as practiced today in many churches. How do we live out this passage in our friendships and relationships?
Regarding the “weaker brother”
Commentator Gordan Fee kinda confesses in his commentary on 1 Corinthians that he is at a loss to come up with a modern analogy to meat sacrificed to idols in 1st century Corinth. I think it’s a good point. I have heard the “offended brother” clause invoked in sooo many different ways, mainly in ways that allow one pious person to hold hostage a larger group of Christians on the basis of what is ultimately one of their own personal preferences. “Well, if we do such and such in Sunday School so and so might be offended.” Not only is that not what I think Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 8, but if it were, that would make these “offended brothers” -at least according to Paul- spiritually “weak.” Ouch.
I think we can deduce from chapter 8 that Paul is talking about knowingly causing another believer [who is perhaps a recent convert] to sin against their conscience. Note: not unknowingly, and not violating a “thus saith the Lord.” I think back to my dear old mother’s reasons not go to the movies. “What if someone sees you going into the multiplex and they don’t know you’re going to see Bambi and they use you as a reason to go see some awful movie.” [Yes, I'm still slightly bitter.] In this example, I would say I am “unknowingly” having this affect on another believer and that believer cannot use me as an excuse to violate Phillipians 4:8. This, I would argue, is far from what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians, and yes, my mother’s logic also applied to video stores.
It is difficult to imagine a modern scenario that duplicates this situation in Corinth. Perhaps alcohol is the closest example: if one knowingly served alcohol at a dinner with a new convert that had battled alcoholism. I really don’t know. . . Any thoughts on what in our day is analogous to meat offered to idols. Whatever Paul is talking about in 8, it seems to be a relatively narrow and specific circumstance, not the broad sense in which it gets invoked today. It is the weaker brother sinning, not the offended brother being angry.
I think these are pretty important passages/concepts to wrestle with that directly affect how we are the chuch.
What thoughts have ye??
April 17, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I attended church under one pastor, who in other respects was a sane individual and caring shepherd, who insisted drinking coke out of cans, and I can only assume out of amber tinted glass, was wrong as those driving by might think it was alcohol. Now, that is of course, I hope we can all agree, silly; however, when does the quest for personal holiness become a crusade/witchhunt with the appropriate casualties?
Gosh…I don’t know.
Christ, if we can go by example and not exposition for a moment, shows a questionable and by modern fundamentalist church terms deplorable amount of concern for what the modern church might define as holiness. Even the woman caught in adultery (yes…I know its not in the original manuscripts) gets very little if any chastisement. I am not arguing she wasn’t sinning, just that Christ seems to treat the situation as if she used the wrong fork.
On the other hand, Christ never lets an opportunity to slam, degrade, insult and otherwise mock the established religious institutions pass by. Just a superficial glance seems to suggest Christ might have come to save humanity from the evils of organized religion. Of course that is hard to jive with the basic command of Christian fellowship.
April 17, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I think the alcohol analogy is similar, but very en vogue in baptist circles especially. I think that a very pertinent one that impacts so many churches is the subject of decency. I can’t tell you how many churches I’ve been in where the teens or college girls have very concern for their Christian brothers in regard to how they dress. As a man, it’s hard enough to deal with the way some women dress in the world, let alone have to avoid it in Church. Not that men, I guess, can’t be just as guilty, or that women should wear frumpy clothes that cover any skin, but merely, that decency prevail.
I’m also sure that some of these girls may do so unaware of the effect they are actually having, but I’d venture to say that most of them do so on purpose as a means of attracting men. And I’m sure that they are successful… probably more so than they realize.
This is the epitomy of causing a brother to stumble.
Does that even make sense to anyone else?
April 18, 2007 at 9:54 am
I think v.10 is my favorite:
Jeez, Mike, again with the hangin’ out with the world. That’s not the thrust of the passage, but rather an assumption that we’ll be mingling with not yet Christians.
When I hear people say, “I used to hang out with my buds at the bar…” or “my old friends.” I’m puzzled that we celebrate that. Shouldn’t we encourage that person to keep those friendships. If we do, we don’t need, yet another, program for “reaching the lost.” There is a reliance on the Holy Spirit to work, something programs don’t count on. Karl Barth said we should read with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. I think another media source may be more ‘relevant’, but the point is we should be in mix. This brings into the mix, “What is holiness?” It goes far beyond simple piety or what others think of you (Jesus was considered a drunkard and glutton). In context (Matthew 11) Jesus saying he was called a drunkard and glutton is out of response to John the Baptist asking, are you the one? Are you the Messiah? [me reading into the text a little] I have to ask, because, you’re not acting like we think you should.
May 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm
[...] to God, not to neglect our moral responsibility, but to keep us from an unhealthy moral-ism (see John’s thoughts). “To be holy, to be set apart to God, is never an end in itself but is always for the sake [...]