Well, I’ll start by saying I think you are misreading 1 Cor. 8 if you think it says that the stronger brother advocates eating food sacrificed to idols. The text doesn’t say that.

It does say, “For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple…” but Paul does not say that the food the stronger brother is eating is a food sacrifice to the idol.

Secondly, the weaker brother’s error is NOT that eating food sacrificed to idols is wrong. The weaker brother’s error is his understanding of the nature of idols. The stronger brother, here, is marked by his knowledge that the idols are empty and the parthenon of gods does not exist. The weaker brother, because of his experience, does not yet have that knowledge – so when it comes to eating the meat sacrificed to idols, he understands a real sacrifice to a real, evil “god.”

Finally, Paul never says anything about correcting or not correcting the brother’s error. He never says anything like “just let him believe that crap, its such a minor thing.” He only addresses that while the brother’s understanding is weak to be careful not to tempt him to act against his conscience (in this case, towards committing idolatry).

So, there is no deference to the error, there is an avoidance of furthering the error.

Matthew Henry on this passage:

But the apostle cautions against putting a stumbling-block in the way of the weak; lest they be made bold to eat what was offered to the idol, not as common food, but as a sacrifice, and thereby be guilty of idolatry. He who has the Spirit of Christ in him, will love those whom Christ loved so as to die for them. Injuries done to Christians, are done to Christ; but most of all, the entangling them in guilt: wounding their consciences, is wounding him.

Ray,
A thought on your question “Is it showing love to allow a brother or sister to continue in error (even if minor) out of respect for (or fear of loss of) some sort of visible unity? ”

1Corinthians chapter 8 seems to answer this question with a “yes”. The “weak” brothers were, according to Paul, in error thinking that it was wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols. And yet the “strong” are told to defer to their misunderstanding in order not to cause a stumbling block for them.

Having said that, I suppose a stumbling block isn’t the same as a unity issue, but the chapter in question does seem to emphasise unity as an ideal.

Thoughts?
Saskia

Whoops, the second sentence should read:

If our unity is in danger due to our differences in understanding and disagreements over matters of theological nuances, that is a poor unity indeed..

I got lost in thought, there.

I wasn’t chiding visible unity (which is why I used “some sort of” as a qualifier). If our unity is in danger due to our differences in understanding and disagreements over matters of theological nuances. Thankfully, our true, visible unity is not in danger over such things. Which is why, though I disagree with their soteriology and “order” of worship, I call my Christian Church/Church of Christ brethren “brothers and sisters in Christ.” But, that won’t keep me from disagreeing on these issues when the subjects come up (or explaining why I avoid my old church when in Ohio – instead worshiping with the believers at my parents church – with whom I also disagree on soteriology).

Also, I wasn’t denying that theological inconsistencies are real. I know they are. What I was asking about is the existence of theological inconsistencies that do not make a difference. I just happen to think that all theological inconsistencies do make a difference.

Time and place, though, I get that and agree.

Ray, thanks for that very thorough critique. You ask if there is such a thing as theological inconsistencies. Well, of course there are. The issue is their significance in the grand scheme of things. I hear your point about allowing error, but I wonder how much of that is about our interpretation versus actual error. Clearly, many interpretive differences exist. Obviously, there are topics that range from the most significant to Christianity to merely speculative. That range should correspond to how loose or tight we hold to our need to correct others. The point of this prayer is to identify what is worth debating and when.

You chide visible unity like it is a bad thing. I’m sure Jesus thought the same thing in his priestly prayer in John 17. Now I don’t suggest that this can happen in all places or all the time, and some issues are worth dividing over for the sake of scriptural integrity. But the point is that some issues are not worth dividing over nor do all differences need to be addressed at all times. Sometimes the setting is not right and sometimes the debate is not worth it at an inappropriate time.

theological inconsistencies that do not make a difference

Serious question: Does such an animal exist?

I mean, if there is an error it is, in someway, a perversion of the truth – and thus a perversion of the character of God.

Take the case of regulative principle of worship vs. contemporary worship settings as an example. This is a fairly contested issue at times, however it is often considered tertiary.

BUT, if the Scriptures do teach a regulative principle as corporate worship that is acceptable to Him – then is it not a perversion of truth to teach otherwise and an injustice to God and to a fellow Christian to let it go as not making a difference?

Conversely, if the opposite is true, that Scriptures teach a different kind of corporate worship, based on the corporate desire to express through many means (plays, solos, etc..) then is it not a perversion of truth to teach otherwise and hold people’s worship back by some outdated, dusty, methodology? Is it not an injustice to God and to a fellow Christian to let it go as not making a difference?

What I need to understand is whether or not if one can believe that there are situations where one believes that disagreement will continue ad infinitum, that this is where illogic is acceptable? Can one actually agree to disagree (false surrender) or are these actually cases in which one truth works for one person and an opposing truth works for another?

Serious follow up questions: Is it showing love to allow a brother or sister to continue in error (even if minor) out of respect for (or fear of loss of) some sort of visible unity? And at what point are we deciding that either a) iron no longer needs to sharpen iron or b) the sharpening of iron is a very smooth process that leaves no scraps behind?

Hello Mr Mike. Read the above because I recommended you to a
young DTS student last night. He thinks you ought to use your
brain when studying the Bible as well as your faith. Hum….where
have I heard that….I know I’ve heard that from someone before. al

Thanks for posting this, Lisa! I think you should start selling T-shirts and wall plaques to spread the message! Too often we argue theology with too little humility and discernment.

Folks argue about what’s adiaphora and what’s not adiaphora all the time.

Eg., the RCC and the EOC will fight to the bone that the Eucharist is/has the Real Presence. This is a first-order, non-negotiable doctrine. To inform them that it’s a non-essential would offend them, some of them, deeply so. (As a sidebar: numerous Catholics, perhaps the majority of them, don’t believe in the Real Presence).

To them, a Zwinglian, memorialist understanding of the “ordinance” of the Lord’s Supper is unthinkable. And to suggest that the whole issue of the Eucharist is a non-essential, and not worth arguing about, well, it gets a lot of traditional Catholics and Eastern Orthodox folks rather perturbed… for even suggesting it’s a matter of indifference to you.

Other issues where someone claims it’s essential and another person claims it’s a non-essential: Baptism (Paedo vs. Credo), Canon (RCC vs. EO vs. Protestant), Inerrancy, et al.

My suggestion is that for the folks who think that something is non-essential, then why don’t you, as a general rule of thumb, defer to the Christian brother or sister who regards it as an essential. For example, if you believe inerrancy of Scripture is a non-essential, then defer to those who proclaim that Scripture is inerrant. After all, it’s not essential to you. Another example, if you believe that complementarianism is a non-essential, then defer to your complementarian brothers and sisters.

But don’t claim that something’s non-essential, and then argue like the dickens for the doctrinal position that you want. Because your behavior then shows that you think it IS essential.

Wow. I’m so delighted to have found you, this blog and the community within it.

Added you to my Google reader. Time to read some more.

Regarding this post – having both experience in the theological realm and the realm of recovery, i smiled broadly and nodded gently at this prayer.