do you have a cause for others? ethics pt 14

Do you have a cause for others, or even for someone else?

There are plenty of causes, plenty of ways to give yourself to someone for the greater good.

The great Evangelist Paul narrows the question a little.

Is your cause something more than simply offering a good work to someone now and then?

Can your cause become a Christian practice or discipline for you?

Is your cause for someone else becoming part of who you are, like your 2nd nature?

i. one example of many is conviction

We often think of personal convictions like we would think of personal mores or values in ethical decision making processes.

However, Paul never really talks too much about personal convictions. Surprisingly, the word itself is found only 2-3 times in the Bible, depending upon your version.

If Paul were to use the term conviction, it would be more like what we consider a cause. Conviction is a more or value for the sake of others.

My conviction regards the conviction of others.

Therefore my conviction is a cause, much more than common courtesy, although common courtesy is a step in the right direction.

ii. my cause is conviction for the sake of someone

It’s all about conviction for the sake of others.

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. (1 Corinthians viii.1; KJV)

The greater cause for someone is narrowed down to conviction for others.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. (NIV)

The issue is meat sacrificed to idols. This is a grey area in the New Testament, not necessarily seen as sin. The sacrifices of the Israelites are usually consumed by the Priestly class and their households. However, outside of Israel temple sacrifices are often sold at the market at a discount (BOGO, Buy 1 get 1 1/2 off, clearance, etc.).

Because there is no solid rule from the HQ in Jerusalem yet, Paul offers a rule. The rule is, no matter how good our arguments, we must speak in love or we do more harm than good. In other words, let’s reason together, not talk over each other. Let’s show some common courtesy for the sake of each other.

iii. Paul’s rule is a cause and a true display of conviction

But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. (1 Cor. viii.9, KJV)

The phrase “take heed” is an imperative, a command, also meaning watch out, or keep watch.

We may have the “liberty,” or literally the authority, to do something that someone else cannot. The word “liberty” is exoosia; often translated power, authority, or authoritative power.

Even if we have liberty or authority to indulge ourselves, we may lay a trap or “stumblingblock” for someone else who does not feel the freedom. The term “stumblingblock” is a metaphor describing something I do which causes someone to sin, or many others in general.

I know a Christian nurse who drinks a bottle of Kombucha every day, though I’ve never seen it in church.

The fermentation in Kombucha cancels out the dilatory effects of the sugar. The nurse lives a life devoted to a cause, to say the least. Refusing to take Kombucha to church is a sign the nurse is also paying attention to Paul’s cause of conviction for the sake of others.

In similar ways, we all must limit our freedoms if our actions cause others to sin. My freedoms are only freedoms unless they infringe on the freedoms of someone else.

This is the greater meaning of Paul’s injunction, “take heed” or watch out for someone else (verse 9). 

iv. the cause: community solidarity & watching out for others’ convictions

For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols.

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? (1 Cor. viii.10-11)

Verses 10-11 speak of non-believer temple feasts, where anyone can eat meat offered to idols. This is a way to meet people at a common table, however it’s a little sticky.

But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. (1 Cor. viii.12)

As they freely feast, they “wound,” or literally strike, the “conscience” of a weaker Christian. The word “wound” is the same word that is used for striking or hitting someone.

The “conscience” is an inner part of humans which acknowledges the right and the wrong. The ideal of the conscience is a central construct of Natural Law Philosophy, perhaps Thomism as well. It’s a law written on the heart.

By enjoying our freedoms, we may actually strike and confuse someone’s conscience. Because of my liberty and indulgence, others may ignore their convictions, which would be sin for them.

Paul tells me, “ye sin against Christ.”

v. when we wound the conscience of someone else, we wound our Lord

“Many Greeks of that day had abandoned belief in the gods and the efficacy of sacrifices, but nevertheless continued to take part, for social reasons, in rites associated with pagan religion. Some of the ‘enlightened’ believers might have reasoned similarly – that their participation was purely social since they denied the existence of the gods. But this exercise of their liberty resulted in a number of adverse effects on weak Christians, whose consciences became defiled (1 Cor. 8:7) and wounded (v. 12).”[1]

So the idea is, if I drink Kombucha I could strike the conscience of somebody. I could perhaps confuse somebody into thinking he/she could do something that he/she would have not previously done. It’s a risk to do something in a grey area, and lead somebody else to do so as well.

If it is clear someone cannot indulge in Kombucha, the greater good, the greater cause, is to be guided by my conviction which refuses to harm someone’s conviction. After all, I found out the nurse has a bottle of Kombucha per day, but I have never seen it at church.

Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. (1 Cor. viii.13)

Thus, conviction is moved from the realm of personal preference…

“Each person should decide with the Spirit’s help which practices are right for him and which are not.”[2]

…to the realm of preferring others. I may have no limitations, but instead limit myself so I do not cause someone else to stumble. This is true conviction.

Thus, conviction is more than personal preference.

My conviction prefers someone.

The cause driving my conviction is meant to prefer the convictions of others, a little bit beyond common courtesy.

Christian ethics must be based on the truths and principles found in the Bible.

Where the Word is silent, the community of faith and conviction are guiding principles in ethical decision making, like mores and common values.

notes:

[1] Anthony Palma, “1 Corinthians,” in Full Life Bible Commentary to the New Testament, eds. French L. Arrington and Roger Stronstad {Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999}, 799-913.
[2] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World {Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993}, 44.