“Whether
you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” -1
Corinthians 10:31
When
the Apostle Paul wrote this, he was reaching a climax in an argument he was
making for how to apply Christian ethics that glorify God to everyday life.
This statement he made was carefully pre-qualified as to its precise meaning
and was not meant to be a catch-all bumper sticker to protect the
antinomian-minded.
The Stumbling Block Test
Paul’s
argument was that, while in itself, matters of eating and drinking are not
sinful, the time and place can quickly make it so. The hot topic in Paul’s day
was the close association that meals had with idolatrous practices. People were
concerned that they may be sinning by eating something from the meat market
that had been given a pagan blessing, but Paul assures them that since those
so-called gods and blessings are not even real, there is no real spiritual
danger. He tells them to “eat whatever is sold in the meat market without
raising any question on the ground of conscience” (vs. 25).
Where
this determination can suddenly change, however, is in how your meal is
perceived by other people. He turns the focus of his argument off of the
conscience of the eater and onto the conscience of the bystander by saying:
“But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not
eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of
conscience—I do not mean your conscience, but his” (vss. 28–29).
Why?
The
Christians in Paul’s day were very aware of the demonic activities that took
place in the pagan worship practices and they often involved meals. It was an
integral part of the overall experience. It goes without saying that the
Christians in Corinth who were saved out of pagan worship that involved
sacrificial meat offerings would be very sensitive to any association with it.
They had the attitude that Jude wrote about later in “hating even the garment
stained by the flesh” (v.23), meaning to hate any effect of and relationship to
sin—be it direct, or indirect.
In
effect, if any activity could appear
to be compromising to someone else, then it became a sinful thing to do. Significantly,
1 Thessalonians 5:22 says to “abstain from every eidos (appearance, or form) of evil.”
Paul
balances his argument by saying that while you need not feel guilty for the
willingness to eat the meat in the first place: “Why should my liberty be
determined by someone else's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am
I denounced because of that for which I give thanks” (vss. 29–30). However, you
ought to be willing to give it up for the sake of your weaker brother.
The
Apostle wrote to the Romans on the same subject. In chapter 14, he makes it
very clear that the food and drink in itself is not necessarily the issue, rather
it is what you do with it. It is very similar in how Christians ought to handle
sexuality. Only in a very specific context can it be expressed in a way that
God allows. Outside of that context brings the weight of God’s judgment that
condemns sin.
Paul
says to the Romans: “Decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the
way of a brother . . . if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no
longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ
died” (13, 15).
The
Apostle Paul is constantly looking out for other people’s consciences—not his
own rights. In fact, he is fast to give up any
right, or liberty, if it means having a greater chance of bringing about
someone’s spiritual conversion.
In
1 Corinthians 9, Paul makes the argument:
“Am
I not free? Am I not an apostle” (vs. 1)?
“Do
we not have the right to eat and drink” (vs. 4)?
“Nevertheless,
we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle
in the way of the gospel of Christ . . . though I am free from all, I have made
myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as
a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the
law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the
law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things
to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of
the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings” (vss. 12, 19–23).
In
the Jew’s case, Paul was willing to give up the eating of certain foods and
drinks that were considered unlawful if it meant not putting a stumbling block
in front of them to really know God.
How vastly different is that from the mentality of our ongoing generation of
immature church leaders who act as if God should cater to them and their rights
regardless of the public around them?
This
mentality flies in the face of God’s command to not put a stumbling block in
front of anyone. As church leaders, we are in the public eye, held to a higher
standard, and critiqued more closely. This is especially true when we multiply
our audience through social media. If we ever purposely draw attention to our
affinity of alcohol in a world that is saturated with the excessive use of it
already, what are we really glorifying in such pretense? The Apostle Paul tells
us it is not God.
The “Above Reproach” Test
Another
aspect to this issue of being known for public drinking is in the very command
to church leaders that we be men who are “above reproach”.
First
Timothy 3 says that an “overseer must be above reproach . . . not a drunkard .
. . not addicted to much wine” (vss. 2–3, 8).
Titus
1 says that elders must be “above reproach . . . and not open to the charge of
debauchery,” which means to indulge
excessively.
It
is significant to see how many different ways the Apostle addresses drinking
alcohol. While drunkenness is condemned altogether, alongside other gross sins
such as sexual immorality, corruption, sensuality, orgies, drinking parties, and idolatry (Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21; 1 Pet 4:3), he
goes so far to say that even the possible charge that you indulge in alcohol too often is a warning flag that you are
not called to be a leader in God’s church because you would not effectively
lead people, by example, to consider God’s call to holiness as you ought.
In
the above mentioned verses where drunkenness is condemned, we see that people
who do such things “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:21). Is it any
wonder that God would not have the alcohol lover in a position of spiritual
influence over a body of people where there are sure to be those who struggle
with the thought of it?
The
call for pastors and church leaders is a much higher one than what is typically
modeled today. There seems to be an obsession for pastors to talk about things
like love and self-sacrifice in very general terms, but rarely is there a
careful articulation of how this can be fleshed out in our own lives by giving up our own
rights.
In
the words of Isaiah: “Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant
men in mixing strong drink” (5:22). To put it another way—be not known for your
alcoholic consumption and the love thereof.
The Temptation Test
This
really serves to strengthen the first point made in that we are not to be a stumbling
block to anyone. Let’s look at it with a slightly higher-powered lens.
When
the Lord Jesus was speaking about temptation in Matthew 18, He made some very
revealing statements that ought to make every Christian take their
responsibility as ambassadors of Christ more seriously.
Beckoning
to a child, the Lord said, “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe
in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened
around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (vs. 5–6).
If
your presence here on earth is going to be one that causes others to even be tempted to sin, then you’re better off
dead—for everyone’s sake.
He
continued: “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that
temptations come, but woe to the one by
whom the temptation comes” (vs. 7), (emphasis mine)!
These
are not words to be taken lightly. If God would think us better off dead and in
need of a statement of woe on our actions, then that only means one thing—we are
not glorifying God. The most
frightening possibility would be that we are not really saved, which could be
indicated by our carelessness to God and His children. The fruit of the Spirit
is the fruit of someone who is really saved. If we have been regenerated by the
Holy Spirit, then His fruit will start growing—the first one being love. If we love God we will obey God
and give up our rights for others.
It
is true that our own sin nature and the depravity that comes with it, is able
to conjure up temptations on its own (Js 1:14), yet those sinful bents can be
exacerbated by the acts of others. Each person is responsible for not acting on
their sinful inclinations, but everyone else can also be culpable for our temptation at the same time.
I
recall the Apostle Paul’s command for children to obey their parents in Colossians
3 and Ephesians 5 & 6, while simultaneously charging parents not to provoke
their children either. It goes both ways.
A Few Final Remarks
While all Christians are to be mindful of any situation that could potentially cause someone to struggle in their hearts and minds about anything in particular, pastors must be even more careful—especially as it pertains to alcohol. We cannot drink whatever we want, whenever we want, and always think we are doing so unto the glory of God. That is an entirely ridiculous, even irreverent, presumption to think that whatever we do determines the glory of God. On the contrary, it is when we act within God’s predetermined will that brings glory to God. Scripture is clear on this. It is not as if—as some would have us believe— the act of drinking alcohol commends us to God (1 Cor 8:8)! It is often in our abstinence of that thing in particular that will bring honor to God, considering the vice that so often surrounds it.
It
must further be said that we must not be so offensive to the godly men who have
gone before us in the past who have been documented as having enjoyed, made,
been paid in, and sold things like beer and wine as being the justification for
our modern and loose standard today. For one thing, they are not apostles and,
therefore, do not exist as the final example of anything, per se. Secondly,
there were practical benefits that spurred the consumption of beer in the Reformation
period, for instance, like curbing the spread of dysentery in the water—reminiscent
of Paul’s encouragement to Timothy to have some wine with his water for his
frequent stomach ailments (1 Tim 5:23). Alcohol has a purifying effect in
water. There is virtually zero need for any alcoholic consumption today
in civilized areas, which places us in an entirely different situation, thus
limiting our reasons.
It
cannot be forgotten that even men of old, while at times articulating the same
truths of the amoral quality of
alcohol, were still privy to its common association and connotation that came
with its public use. Spurgeon, in a sermon on the topic of parents whose
children were not walking in the truth,
once said, “I pity the father whose children are not walking in the truth, who
yet is himself an earnest Christian. Must it always be so, that the father shall
go to the house of God and his son to the alehouse?” His dichotomy is not
without purpose.
Even
Martin Luther, who has wrongly been criticized as a drunkard, wrote vehemently against
drunkenness. He knew the difference and did not even want an association with
it. For the modern hipster “pastor” to purposely self-promote their consistent
consumption of alcohol is nothing short of having a very low view of what a
pastor is actually called to do, not to mention what holiness is. Ultimately this stems
from lacking the appropriate fear of God. Being above reproach becomes nearly
impossible if that is what you are known for because that is a standard that is
to be generally understood by all men—not just close friends who may approve
and commend the practice.
This
is not to say that a pastor couldn’t rightly enjoy some in his own private
time, but it is not a matter for public display since impressionable eyes could
be watching. Even at restaurants, the pastor must be thinking of more than
himself. The time and place makes a huge difference on the perception of the order.
I
have a dear friend who I knew to enjoy the taste of beer and would often order just
one if he were at a restaurant—nothing more. Once he started teaching Sunday
school at his church to younger children, though, he came under the conviction
that it could be a devastating thing for one of his Sunday school kids to see
him in a restaurant with a beer in his hands. Though he would never get drunk,
he knew that it could be a devastating stumbling block, not to mention
implicitly advocating alcoholic consumption as their spiritual teacher! He
wisely decided not to ever order beer out again.
I
told him how much I personally appreciated that because I was one of those
children once. I used to immediately associate alcohol with sin—always. I only
knew of it in a bad context. If I knew of a pastor who liked to drink, then I
was instantly taken back to my former association with it (not mine, but family
member’s) and it bothered me greatly. We eliminate the stumbling blocks by
eschewing the practice. My friend’s concern was in the heart of the people who
were watching and he gave up his rights. This
is what God expects of us, men.
“It
is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother
to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is
the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves”
(Rom 14:21–22).
In
His Sovereign Grip,
Ben
