Yesterday, our sister Sami gave a message from passages selected from 1 Cor. 7 & 8. You can hear the full message here. Today, I’d like to reflect on the last half of 1 Cor. 8. It is the passage that deals with whether or not it was OK to eat food sacrificed to idols. In those days, most societies in the Roman Empire were polytheist. They believed in many gods and offered sacrifices to garner favor for the gods. Since the gods didn’t physically eat the sacrificial food, oftentimes they would sell the food on the market (no sense in letting perfectly good food, especially meat, go to waste). This caused conflicting issues of conscience for Christians who were just coming out of a polytheist world with all of the baggage to boot. As a result questions arose about the ethics, morality, and faithfulness to God surrounding the eating of such food. So Paul transcends the particulars and drives at the heart of the matter.
The heart of the matter regarding food sacrificed to idols is about objective standards of faithfulness to God versus subjective standards. For example, in chapters 6 and 7, Paul talks at great length regarding faithfulness to an objective standard for sexual activity. Monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate outlet for sexual expression. It is an objective standard, the violation of which is never justified. According to chapter 8, the issue of faithfulness to God in eating foods sacrificed to other gods is really not a matter of objective faithfulness, but rather subjective. It is subjective because it really depends on the perceptions and beliefs of the individual considering the consumption of such food. Objectively, there may be no moral weight in eating said food. However, it could be an issue of violating one’s conscious. That brings us to another concept to consider, the reality that there is both objective and subjective morality.
Subjective morality is generally a personal ethic that a Christian follows within the morality spelled out in the Bible for everyone. [tweetquote]
Subjective morality is generally a personal ethic that a Christian follows within the morality spelled out in the Bible for everyone. For example, the Bible doesn’t specifically prohibit the drinking of alcohol. Yet some believers don’t want anything to do with alcohol. Some hold to this because they personally believe it is morally wrong to do so. Others hold to it because they see the destructive potential it can cause. Then there are those who have no qualms about having a few drinks and feel free to do so within the biblical guidelines of not getting drunk. This is very much the case in Paul’s exhortation at the end of 1 Cor. 8. Eating food sacrificed to idols has no objective moral bearing on the Christian because there is no god behind the idol. But if someone were struggling with how to keep a clear conscience of faithfulness to God and Jesus while eating meat sacrificed to another god, then there is clearly a subjective morality coming into play that violates that person’s conscience.
The principle of co-existing objective and subjective moralities in God’s kingdom is still alive and relevant today. The above example expresses that very well, as some believers are OK with some wine or beer, while others are not. Another example regarding this is the dietary modifications today. Some people have seriously medically diagnosed food issues. Others are self-diagnosed. Yet much of what we see advertised and talked about on blogs have infiltrated Christian culture as well. There are a lot of things from secular culture that influences Christian culture–it’s just a reality. What is alarming is the intense evangelistic-like outreach people embark upon in terms of preferred dieting (or use of essential oils for that matter-for a fun satirical take on that look here). There is almost a religious zealotry surrounding how someone eats. If 1st century Corinth’s issue was eating meat sacrificed to idols and 19th century America’s issue was alcohol, then today’s American issue is adhering to the perfect diet. When we get to a point where we are “preferring” not to be around the company of someone who eats differently than we do in the church, I think we have issues. Being able to acknowledge and respect people’s different views on diet is important in today’s culture. The Keto-Diet is not morally superior to a low-fat diet. People without food allergies are not more degenerate for eating foods freely when someone with a food allergy can’t or won’t eat it. There is no moral bearing on our diet. Does that mean I (an avid meat eater) should insist that a vegetarian eat meat when I’m around? Of course not. And neither should it be vice-versa. What it does mean is that we should be able to respect each other’s positions, without feeling the compulsion to “educate” someone on the hazards and benefits of eating a food that one considers forbidden or essential.
When we get to a point where we are “preferring” not to be around the company of someone who eats differently than we do in the church, I think we have issues. [tweetquote]
I personally don’t see the reason food consumption should be moralized, yet some do. I do know if my family is hosting a brother or sister with food restrictions, we will accommodate them gladly. But when my family is dining privately, we’ll eat anything we want. Were someone with a food aversion to tell me that just knowing I ate food they avoided was causing them to stumble and that I should stop eating it, I would respectfully deny their request because that is not a matter of respecting their conscience, it is a manipulation tactic against me–which never honors God nor me. As Christians, we should respect people’s dietary preferences and at the same time hold to our own dietary preferences since diet is not a morally objective thing (Even as this satirical take reflects). I eat according to my conscience. Others eat according to theirs. And that should be that. Diet is a matter of subjective morality, not objective. The person eating meat sacrificed to idols does not sin against God if they don’t violate conscience. Neither does the person who abstains from said meat. Likewise, someone who eats a starch-heavy dinner loaded with cheese is not sinning against God. Neither does someone who only eats fruits and vegetable picked from their own garden. These are parts of a personal moral ethic that fits within the objective moral ethics of God’s law. Paul’s exhortation to Corinth, and mine to today’s Christians is that we have to respect people’s personal convictions (their personal moral ethic) so long as it doesn’t violate the objective ethics of God.
Paul’s exhortation to Corinth, and mine to today’s Christians is that we have to respect people’s personal convictions (their personal moral ethic) so long as it doesn’t violate the objective ethics of God. [tweetquote]
So how can we use our energies to build each other up in faith and in the presence of God instead of finding excuses to avoid interacting with each other? How can we show a Christ-centered love for one another regardless of our eating preferences? One thing I’ve found that empowers this kind of motive is to focus on what we have in common, not on what we differ. So what is the common ground we have with other members of TGP and the larger Christian community around us? Let’s build on the common foundations of Jesus and let the kingdom be proclaimed by our love for one another.
Let’s build on the common foundations of Jesus and let the kingdom be proclaimed by our love for one another. [tweetquote]
Thank you for reading this week’s blog post. I hope it has helped you look at the last half of 1 Cor. 8 in a new way as we consider some of the areas Paul can speak to in our day. In the end, I pray it has helped you better experience our Lord’s