Conscience (Pt 2) - Living in Community

Introduction

Conscience: A God-given internal tool that processes information about choices you face, gives moral feedback on those choices, and motivates you to choose the right option.

Last week, we read through all the NT passages about the conscience and began to understand what it is and does. Now we move to slightly stickier territory: what should we do about all the other consciences around us?

To answer that question, we should go to the most important NT passage on how the conscience affects how we live – 1Co8-10. Hopefully, you’ve seen enough by now to realize that the Christian life and the church life are essentially united. There’s no such thing as living the Christian life in isolation.

Dealing with our own conscience in isolation would be fairly manageable, I think. But when we consider the impact of our conscience on others and their impact on our conscience, it gets a lot stickier. Now it’s not just me making decisions about musical style that affect just me; it’s “I know why I don’t listen to (X), but how in the world does he?” It’s not just you making decisions about what to wear that affect just you; it’s “I believe I should wear (X), but why does she think she can wear that?” If conscience-based standards are only about me in isolation, or if I live in an insulated community where everyone has the same set of standards, then there’s really no difficulty. When you get a group of God’s people together and they all set the bar in different places, then things get rough.

Background to 1Cor 8-10

Weak: 8.7-12

Discussion: Why is it important that “weak” doesn’t mean “strict?”

If weak always meant strict, then the point of this passage is that Christians with more permissive standards should always defer to Christians with stricter standards. Why is that a big deal? I used to date a girl who was convinced that that’s what this passage meant. (Disagreeing with her wasn’t what ended things, but it didn’t help.) Thing was, she was a lot more conservative than I am on several issues, so her “biblical application” was that I needed to live up to her personal standards without discussion or question. What happens if we interpret this passage to mean that higher standards always win? On any issue possible, we all have to behave just like the member with the most conservative position on that issue. If weak means strict or conservative, that is the only way we could possibly apply that issue.

Discussion how would your campus look if the rules worked that way?

Another really big problem with weak=strict, strong=lenient is that it makes looser standards inherently better. Strong is better than weak, so lower standards are more spiritual than higher ones.

Those of you with high standards might have felt a little put down when I said that this interpretation was wrong and that it doesn’t enable you to set the bar, but you were probably pretty glad when I pointed out that it also doesn’t make lower standards intrinsically better. Likewise, you who have looser standards in a given area were pretty happy when I said that this passage doesn’t mean you have to live by the strictest standard imaginable but a little let down when I said it doesn’t automatically validate your position. Point is, no matter how strict or lenient, we’re all glad that this passage doesn’t mean “let the strictest opinion prevail.” Weak ≠ strict and strong ≠ lenient. [chart]

1Cor 8: Defending the Weak

Paul starts by addressing what part of the church? Strong+lenient – We know they’re lenient because of how he describes their behavior; we know they’re strong because he tells them how to treat the weak.

He starts with knowledge. The knowledge bottom line is “there’s no such thing as idols, so meat offered to idols is meat offered to NOTHING, so there’s nothing wrong with that meat.” We see here that this group has the more permissive standard of living.

But that informational bottom line is not enough. Pure knowledge can settle the issue for you in your own heart, but remember, Christian living doesn’t occur in isolation. If you’re going to live rightly toward your neighbor, you need more than accurate knowledge to make your decision.

But what could override my accurate knowledge? My brother’s weak conscience.

Here’s where we find out what Paul means by “weak” – look at verse 7: “their conscience being weak,” verse 10: “his conscience is weak,” and verse 12: “their conscience when it is weak.” Does “weak” refer to standards or behavior choices? No. “Weak” refers to the conscience.

1Cor 9: Defending the Strong

I used to think “Paul gives all the instructions to the Corinthians with a strong conscience and tells them how to limit their liberty for the sake of the Corinthians with a weak conscience, but he doesn’t give any instructions for educating the ones with a weak conscience. I guess the strong-conscience ones are supposed to bear this whole burden alone.” I was wrong. It’s true that Paul didn’t give any explicit instructions to the strong-conscience ones about how to help the weak-conscience ones grow, but he does teach by example. He turns around in chapter 9 and addresses the weak+strict members of the church. I used to wonder why he changed topics from idol-meat in 8 to apostolic rights in 9 back to idol-meat in 10. Then I understood that the section about apostolic rights wasn’t a topic shift; it was his way of targeting the weak-conscience church members and teaching them how to treat the strong-conscience members.
He starts with “rights” in this chapter. In 8, he took his topic “knowledge” and showed how it was not good to base controversial permission on knowledge alone. He took that topic and minimized it in order to help the strong-conscience ones see their need to limit their liberty.

He then takes “rights” and elevates them for the sake of the weak-conscience ones. You see, the strong-conscience ones caused trouble when they elevated “knowledge” so Paul minimizes it. The weak-conscience strict ones caused trouble when they minimized “rights” so Paul elevates the legitimacy of liberty to help weak-conscience strict Corinthians understand their need to stop judging.

Discussion: You may wonder, “Why doesn’t he talk about rights relating to idol meat? Why change topics?”

He uses a couple areas where he had a “right” and gave it up: eating and drinking without restriction, marrying a Christian woman, and being paid for full-time ministry. He goes really deep on the paid-for-ministry right and defends it with OT Scripture, but then vs 15 is what Paul is driving at:

But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

Do you see how Paul views his rights? As something he gives up to gain eternal rewards. Whether of his own will or not, he will still minister, but he willingly sacrifices his rights to gain Christ’s reward for his service.

So what does it benefit the weak+strict Corinthians for Paul to talk about how legitimate and defensible rights are, only to say he doesn’t exercise all of his?

The point I believe he’s making for the sake of the weak+strict ones is that you can lay down your own rights, but you can’t strong-arm your brother into laying down his. That’s the application that’s really meaningful for this part of the Corinthian church. The strong+lenient ones were most tempted to sin by exercising their liberty without concern for the brothers who would be destroyed. The weak-conscience ones were most tempted to sin by demanding that legitimate rights be forfeited. Both sides are being selfish in their own way: Paul addresses them both.

To those who were selfishly exercising their well-informed rights, he puts down the knowledge that (even though it was accurate) fed their arrogant exercise of liberty. To those who were selfishly limiting their brothers’ liberty, he elevates the legitimacy of those rights to curb judgmental pride.

What does all of this boil down to? Well, I think we can safely say that both sides of this issue got the same corrective: “stop being selfish – think of one another first.”

1Cor10: Be thankful, not idolatrous.

Paul starts with a story about how God killed thousands of Israelites because they participated in idol-worship ceremonies. This brings it back to the heart of the issue, back to something both sides will agree on: “We don’t want to worship idols.” Interestingly, “we don’t want to be idolatrous” was something both parties needed to give each other credit for. Those who knew that idols were nothing and that idol-meat was nothing special could suspect their weak+strict brothers of actually believing in idols and legitimizing idol worship through their reaction to idol-meat. Those who wouldn’t eat idol-meat could accuse their meat-eating brothers of participation in idolatry by their meat shopping and eating. Paul brings up God’s strong reaction to idolatry in a way that reminds both groups of their common ground. Neither of them worshipped idols and they needed to give each other credit for that.

Paul gets back to practical in vs 23 – he reminds the Corinthians that “it’s lawful!” is not the bottom line on controversial standards – you must seek the good of your neighbor, not merely your own liberty/standard.

First situation: shop in the meat market without asking questions about idol-meat. Even the people who feel conscience-bound to not eat idol-meat are supposed to shop without asking questions. Does the phrase “ignorance is bliss” come to mind? Paul is clear – don’t go digging for all sorts of “association-dirt” that will cause conscience issues.

Discussion: how do we do that today? Music associations?

Second situation: eat at your unsaved friend’s house without asking questions about idol-meat. Don’t try to upset your conscience. But if some one tells you “This is idol-meat,” don’t eat. The clear implication is that the “one who informed you” is a weak+strict brother. If you and the informer both have strong consciences and eat idol-meat without sinning, it wouldn’t matter. But if he has a weak conscience and thinks idol-meat is sin, we’re back in chapter 8: eat no meat while the world stands. Don’t eat for his conscience’s sake.

Discussion: “I don’t want to lose a chance to witness” vs. “I’m going to love my brother.”

And now vs 31. The most misquoted summer camp mealtime verse of all time. It does not mean, “whether you eat lunch or ride the giant swing or go to lake time or play human foosball or listen to the evening service preacher or have God & I time, do it all to the glory of God.” What Paul really means in this verse (in context!) is: “Whatever decision you make on personal conscience-based standards like eating idol-meat or not, do it for the glory of God.” Yes, it’s true that you should do everything to God’s glory, even eating lunch, but what 1Co 10.31 is actually saying is, “whether your standard on a debatable behavior issue are strict or lenient, have your standard because you’re convinced it glorifies God.”

Application for us

Strong-conscience & lenient standards:

Weak-conscience & strict standards:

Strong-conscience & strict standards:

Weak-conscience & lenient standards:

Everybody: