Christian Liberty & the Weaker Christian
I Corinthians 8
A passage that is frequently--and unfortunately--misrepresented by leaders in the conservative evangelical movement is Paul's response to a question from the Corinthians about eating meat offered to idols.
Paul begins by reminding his readers of the primacy of love in relationships and a warning against a smug and prideful knowledge toward fellow believers (I Corinthians 8:1-3).
The situation he is addressing deals with meat offerings made to various local gods. In Greek and Roman society, offerings of food made to the gods were eaten by the priesthood. Any remaining food might be sold at a discount or shared in public or private festivals and entertainments. A dispute had arisen about whether eating this food that had been sacrificed to local gods meant an acceptance of and acquiescence to these deities.
Paul responds that there is only one God and that food is food, and that there is nothing wrong in itself with eating these foods. Christians have the liberty of eating the food free from any sense of violation or wrongdoing (I Corinthians 8:4-6).
However, some Christians struggled with acceptance of this freedom. Despite what they might have been told, their consciences left them feeling as though they were violating their beliefs, and eating these foods--or seeing other Christians eat them--caused them harm. These Christians whose consciences were easily offended by these behaviors Paul identifies as the weaker Christians. (I Corinthians 8:7).
Paul, therefore, argues that those Christians who understand that there is nothing wrong with eating this food--the stronger Christians--should, out of love for their fellow Christians, choose not to exercise their Christian liberty to keep the weaker members from engaging in activities that might result in guilty consciences and weaken their faith.
This principle has been applied to a variety of social and cultural situations in contemporary Christianity, from questions about personal appearance and attire, consumption of alcoholic beverages, attendance at various public entertainments, employing various musical instruments in worship services, and enjoying card games to reading certain books, playing video games, or watching certain movies and television programs. The more knowledgeable Christian may well recognize that there is no harm in these various activities and issues while others, who have been brought up to see these behaviors as sinful, might struggle with their consciences. Therefore, if the behavior or action, which is perfectly fine to do, will cause a weaker Christian to become offended or act against his or her conscience, the stronger Christian, out of love for others, will forebear.
This principle, however, has sometimes been abused by conservative evangelical leaders, who, offended by some behavior or cultural artifact, will demand that Christians avoid it to prevent weaker Christians from falling or to prevent Christians from giving the "appearance of evil" (I Thessalonians 5:22) to the world around them. The problem with that argument is that they themselves are the offended ones, making them the weaker Christian, something that they would vehemently deny. In particular, these leaders have often focused their criticisms on women, revealing a misogynistic, patriarchal, or arrogant attitude toward women, in complete opposition to Paul's call for Christian charity. Like the religious leaders questioning Christ, too many contemporary religious leaders proclaim their moral superiority, condemning those with whom they disagree.