Discussion over stumbling blocks and causing brothers or sisters to stumble crop up regularly in the church. Usually, it must be said, when one person doesn’t like what another person is doing. In a sly attempt to stop someone else doing what they believe they ought not to do, even though the Bible doesn’t directly say so, the ‘stumbling block principle’ gets invoked. Usually, in such circumstances, the view amounts to something like: I do not like what you are doing and so, because I don’t like it, you have to stop it lest you cause me to take offence. In his NICNT on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee addresses this very issue.
First, he is clear about the issue at hand in the Corinthian Church. You will need to read his full comment for yourself, but essentially he insists the issue in 1 Corinthians 8 concerning meat offered to idols is not simply a matter of food formerly offered to idols being sold in a marketplace. Rather, Paul is addressing those believers eating food as part of the cultic temple meals who, considering that idols are nothing, actively invite former idol worshippers previously involved in such temple worship to come with them. Fee suggests Paul is particularly concerned with those who formerly believed such idols to be real gods, who have since left such thinking behind, being encouraged back to thinking of these idols as real gods and, worse, drawn back into idol worship.
Second, Fee argues Paul is most concerned with love trumping freedom or rather not allowing Corinthians views of freedom to be exercised without love for their brothers and sisters. He suggests 1 Cor 8:9 references a Corinthian catch word and exousia (freedom/authority) means to them something close to ‘freedom to act as they please without restraint’. Fee says ‘for the Corinthians, “knowledge” (= insight) means “rights” to act in “freedom.” Thus for them freedom became the highest good, since it led to the exaltation of the individual.’ Fee goes on to note that ‘not only do they want to “free” some of their brothers and sisters from what to them is their current bondage to false notions about “gods”… but also their view of exousia has led them to question Paul’s own apostleship and freedom since he does not act with the boldness of such “authority”.’
Third, from 1 Cor 8:10, Fee insists we learn three key things. First, those with “knowledge” are going to the cultic meals in the temple dining halls and this is the specific issue with which they are arguing against Paul. Second, they are encouraging others within the Christian community to take the same “knowledgeable” stance that they do and are actively encouraging those with weak consciences to join them at these meals. Third, the problem for those with weak consciences is not that they are “offended” by what the “knowledgeable ones” are doing but that they are being emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols. Fee says, ‘it is not the food that destroys them, but the idolatry that is inherent in eating in the temples.’ Specifically an idolatry which they had previously left behind and which they are now being encouraged to entertain again.
Fourth, Fee argues the following:
In saying that the brother “is destroyed” Paul most likely is referring to eternal loss, not simply some internal “falling apart” because one is behaving contrary to the “dictates of conscience.” The latter idea is altogether too modern; and elsewhere in Paul this word invariably refers to eternal ruin. That seems to clinch the argument that real idolatry (i.e. eating cultic meals) is the issue at hand, not simply eating food that formerly had idolatrous associations. What is in view is a former idolator falling back into the grip of idolatry… For such people to return to idolatry means to come back under its power and thus suffer eternal loss.
Finally, Fee argues in relation to v13 that Paul then generalises the principle. So, the issue at hand is using your freedom to eat cultic meals in the temple, inviting former idolator involved in that worship to eat with you and causing those former idolators to fall back into their idolatry. In v13, he generalises that principle and insists if eating meat at all would destroy a brother or sister this way, then out of love for them, he would never eat meat again. It is a principle of love over freedom; my freedom should not destroy others but love ought to cause me to set my freedom aside if it will cause someone to fall away.
Helpfully, Fee outlines what this means for the modern church. He says, ‘the issue is not that of “offending” someone in the church. It has to do with conduct that another would “emulate” - indeed, in this case is apparently being urged to emulate – to his or her own hurt’. He goes on to say the primary issue here is ‘people arguing for behaviour on the basis of knowledge and asserting their “authority/freedom” to the detriment of others… What would seem to be an illegitimate use of the principle, even in the broader terms of v13, is for those who feel “offended” to try to force all others to conform to their own idiosyncrasies or behaviour.’ He also notes that, in the church, the ‘weaker brother principle’ is often applied to peripheral issues whereas in 1 Corinthians 8 it applies to a fundamental matter of idolatry that Paul later, in 1 Corinthians 10, tells even those who consider themselves ‘free’ that their behaviour is unethical. The situation is like using your “knowledge” and “freedom” in Christ i.e. antinomianism to get drunk and encouraging a former alcoholic who has since become a believer to apply the same “knowledge” and “freedom” to get drunk with you knowing the real possibility that your drunkenness may not take hold of you, but it very may well destroy your brother.
I think these things are particularly helpful to us in understanding how to apply this weaker brother principle in the church. All too often, the weaker brother principle is used against those who believe one course of action to be legitimate and another group does not. The ones who insist it is not demand the “stronger” group desist. Clearly, in 1 Corinthians 8, the principle is about encouraging people into behaviour that they do not believe is legitimate and, worse, doing so in such a way they are likely to fall away from Christ as a result. Unless you are being encouraged into a particular behaviour against your conscience and there is a chance you will end up undermining your faith in a catastrophic way, the weaker brother principle is not really at play.
It has, sadly, become something of a power-play in the church to demand anyone who does anything I wish they wouldn’t to desist for my sake. Not because I am in any danger of doing it myself, nor because my faith in Christ will in any way be undermined by it, but simply because I don’t like it and want to force conformity to what I believe to be biblical. Such statements and references to the “weaker brother” almost always show such a person is not a weaker brother. They are in no danger of emulating what they consider to be ungodly nor is there much chance they will renounce Christ because of it. Nobody’s conscience is seared because someone else does what they think ought not to be done; consciences are seared when what one thinks ought not to be done they are encouraged, even forced, to do and run the risk that they will undermine their faith by returning to their old way of life as a result.
The other day, I wrote about Alistair Begg’s recent comments to a grandmother concerning her grandson’s transgender wedding. I didn’t share my view on his particular comments, but I did want to parse the issues at play and make a case that we need to be careful about insisting the Bible demands a position that it doesn’t expressly state but that we have to wisely consider and apply ourselves. You can read my comments here.
Some would wish to use this weaker brother principle and suggest Begg’s comments fall foul. There is a perfectly legitimate case against Begg’s advice should one want to make it, but this is almost certainly not it. Unless you are encouraging a former trans person, who has since become a believer, to attend this wedding with you and there is a distinct possibility that they may be so moved by the event that they return to their former lifestyle and reject Christ, it is hard to see how this is at play. Even if we take Paul’s generalising principle, unless our attendance is going to cause other brothers and sisters to attend similar events and such is likely to cause them to turn away from the truth of the gospel, I struggle to see how this issue is at play. Indeed, none of the people making arguments against Begg’s position (and, once again, I think there is a solid case to make against his given advice) seem to fall into this particular category. It feels very much like people doing exactly what Fee says we ought not to do; that is, insisting that because I do not like your position that you must desist lest I stumble, even though I know there is no danger of that actually happening.
My original post on Begg’s comments did not lay out my position. My two simple points were these: (1) the issue at hand is whether our attendance is to affirm or whether it is possible to attend whilst clearly and openly being seen not to approve of the decision on display because of our commitment to Christ. This is the fundamental question that we must answer. If we say attendance is affirmation then we cannot go; if we think it is possible to attend and clearly not affirm, it might be acceptable to go. (2) we ought not to insist that if others fall differently on the very specific, narrow question in (1) they have necessarily drifted from orthodoxy. Given the Bible does not expressly tell us whether to attend or not, we must have grace with one another to see that we are seeking to wisely apply the relevant biblical principles given our answer to (1). This is not the same question as how to view trans issues more broadly nor how the church ought to view those who take an affirming position. The question was concerned with a non-affirming person, who is biblically clear, and whether it is possible to attend without affirming or not. All of which is to say, it is not a specific question about orthodoxy nor biblical ethics per se (on which all were agreed), but on a particular application of those principles.
My previous post on this was concerned with viewing the comments (or rather, the one who made them) in the right way. That is, whether agreeing or disagreeing, recognising this is a wisdom question of application not an issue of clear and overt biblical fidelity. However, my main concern here is not that the question ought not to be asked nor that the two different lines on the question be robustly discussed. Rather, that we don’t use false arguments – like the weaker brother principle – to try and bolster our position unreasonably. Unless you happen to be a believing former-trans person who might be persuaded to return to that lifestyle because you see another believer attending such a wedding, we need to park that particular argument. It never washed when the ‘alcohol is wrong’ brigade insist everybody should become teetotal because they think drink is wrong and it seems to be a totally misplaced argument here. The sole issue at hand – and where any decision and discussion ought to lie – is whether a) we are affirming by attending or there is a way of clearly not affirming whilst attending; and, b) how we view other believers who are not encouraging anyone to do as they do, nor forcing anyone to copy them, nor liable to “destroy” any other believer but who simply land differently to us.
As a final aside, I do have a view on this whole issue. But I am purposefully not sharing it because I don’t want my view to become the issue. My purpose here is not to agree or disagree with Alistair Begg, because that is not relevant, but to simply parse the issue pertinent to the discussion at hand, to encourage us to view this particular discussion in the right way, to talk about brothers and sisters who land differently to us to think properly about one another and to push us to make arguments that are relevant rather than, frankly, manipulative like the ways in which the weaker brother principle is so often employed.