What Difference Deference?

I heard a sermon today on 1 Corinthians 8 about deference. At least, that's what I heard. Paul's topic with the first century church at Corinth was concerning eating meat sacrificed to idols. My pastor's focus was on suborning our rights out of love for needs of the larger body. He elicited some suggestions from the folks to modernize the message, which produced a lively list of possibilities: drinking, smoking, dress codes and music preferences all made the list. There are many other contemporary examples.

I was reminded of a time some years ago when I was the administrator of a conservative Christian school. We arranged for the high schoolers to attend a concert by the then popular group, The Imperials. They were tame compared to the alternatives such as Stryper, Petra and White Heart, but apparently I was not discerning enough to realize that they were too "worldly" for Christian young people. I was called on the carpet and eventually relieved of my position because of my irresponsible decision to sponsor such an activity for our Christian young people.

I relate that incident not to elicit sympathy, but to illustrate the nature of the dilemma presented by Paul's admonition to consider the "weaker brother" when making choices which qualify as optional. By "optional" I mean those things which Scripture does not specifically forbid, but which may be forbidden by some in the church. Paul is very clear in his admonition that we not allow anything we do to damage (Paul says, "present a stumbling block" to) the faith of others who might be watching us. This presents (at least) two problems.

First, is how we define "watching." It seems inevitable that I may do something that qualifies as a "stumbling block" without knowing someone is "watching." Perhaps the best course, therefore, is to simply cease doing that thing forever to avoid the chance that someone may witness my actions. Some people infer that from Paul's statement, "I will never eat meat again." I could get into the deep weeds of the subjunctive grammar of the Greek Paul uses, but I think it better simply to say that we should be careful what we do in public because of the principle of the stumbling block.

The second problem is how we define "damage." In this and the parallel passages in 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 14 Paul refers to actions that cause another Christian to sin. Some people try to suggest that an offense is created simply by the observance of one's debatable actions. I think there may be some believers who are too easily "offended" by another Christian's actions. Paul uses a very strong word, saying that our actions may "destroy" another's faith. I understand this to mean that our actions cause a brother (or sister) to commit what would be sin to them because it is not an action taken in faith. If my brother sees me do something he is not in accord with, my reputation may be damaged (destroyed), but unless he takes license from my actions to commit the "sin" himself, I have not caused "offense" in the Pauline sense.

Throughout these passages, Paul calls the one who might stumble the "weaker brother" because he has not attained the maturity to see that the activity in question is not sinful in and of itself. If mature Christians are supposed to refrain from any activity that someone might deem sinful, everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator, and liberty effectively loses its meaning. If Jesus had followed this to the extreme, the Gospels would read quite differently; in fact, he may have been able to avoid the Cross altogether.

When we choose alcohol or music or dress or any other cultural subject as our focus, we cloud the true nature of the issue. After all, Protestants continually offend Catholics; Baptists offend Lutherans; Charismatics offend everybody. No one is suggesting that we abandon our faith traditions when they offend those of another faith tradition. It is clear to me that there is a limit beyond which deference is not required. Our love for our brethren must be mitigated by some higher principle.

Here is where I really struggle with this whole concept: what if the thing you wish to do is apparently God's will for you, but someone else would take offense if you do it. Say, dear lady, that you know you should attend church on Sunday, but your husband would be offended if you do. Do you forsake gathering with other believers (a Scriptural command) to avoid offending your husband? Say, kind sir, that you hear God's call to evangelize in taverns. Do you forsake God's call because some would be offended if they saw you enter such establishments? The Brits call this a sticky wicket.

Because of my well established rebellious nature, I am doubtless inclined to err on the side of license rather than deference. I will still maintain, however, that my duty is to my conscience and not my brother's. I cannot control what he thinks, although I must strive to avoid making him think ill. Whenever there is a conflict between deference and doing right, there is no contest. Whenever it is simply a decision about optional behavior, I must allow love to motivate me to deference, but I will not be bullied into deference by a brother who claims offense when he is not tempted to join in my "sin." 

If what I suggest seems a little too nuanced, or worse it sounds like rationalization for my rebellion against undue restriction, perhaps this will serve as a palliative: my rights never extend to the violation of another's rights. Christian love demands that I consider what others may infer or do because of my actions. If nothing else, Paul's message to the Corinthians was to remember the role conscience plays in a believer's life. I must listen to my conscience, and so must we all. If some disagree about deference, that is a difference of conscience, not substance. God grant us the grace to defer to that difference.