First Corinthians 8
A couple of things catch my attention here. Acquiring knowledge is not as important as loving. Head knowledge is not as valuable or powerful as heart action. Another humbling moment for a guy with a PhD.
So, what do you think of the question, "Is loving God more important than knowing God?" How would you distinguish the two?
Secondly, I am always intrigued by the stronger v. weaker brother thoughts of Paul. It seems like he is arguing that freedom (a theme we see over and over again in 1 Corinthians) is a primary characteristic of the stronger Christian. Thus, those Christians who are afraid or opposed to new things and freedom in Christ, and who are dependent on tradition and religious dogma, are the weaker brother. \
If this is so, then the following logic could apply. Even though I may say that is takes strength to be a tee-totaler and not drink alcohol at all, I am the weaker brother if I am offended because those who are free to drink (without getting drunk) have a beer or margarita with dinner.
Or is it more accurate to say this: If I am a recovering alcoholic, and a well-meaning Christian has a beer in front of me, causing me to stumble (drink again) because I am the weaker brother, then he has misused his freedom.
Of course, I think Paul's other important point is this: Freedom is of value only if it points others to Christ. We are free to follow him. If we exercise any other type of freedom, then we fail in our Christian calling. Paul is right on target when he says, "If I cause my brother to sin," then I will not exercise my freedom.
So, what do you think of the question, "Is loving God more important than knowing God?" How would you distinguish the two?
Secondly, I am always intrigued by the stronger v. weaker brother thoughts of Paul. It seems like he is arguing that freedom (a theme we see over and over again in 1 Corinthians) is a primary characteristic of the stronger Christian. Thus, those Christians who are afraid or opposed to new things and freedom in Christ, and who are dependent on tradition and religious dogma, are the weaker brother. \
If this is so, then the following logic could apply. Even though I may say that is takes strength to be a tee-totaler and not drink alcohol at all, I am the weaker brother if I am offended because those who are free to drink (without getting drunk) have a beer or margarita with dinner.
Or is it more accurate to say this: If I am a recovering alcoholic, and a well-meaning Christian has a beer in front of me, causing me to stumble (drink again) because I am the weaker brother, then he has misused his freedom.
Of course, I think Paul's other important point is this: Freedom is of value only if it points others to Christ. We are free to follow him. If we exercise any other type of freedom, then we fail in our Christian calling. Paul is right on target when he says, "If I cause my brother to sin," then I will not exercise my freedom.
Labels: alcohol, First Corinthians, freedom, love
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home