In the first half of the 1980s, a broad discussion about the Christian lifestyle was held in the midst of the Reformed Churches (liberated). During this discussion certain differences of emphasis came to light.

The purpose of this booklet is to once again pick up the thread of this conversation; not primarily to recall or broaden these past differences of opinion, but where possible to construct bridges to connect them. This article aims to make a modest contribution to this effort, first by means of a (global) review and assessment of the discussion mentioned, followed by means of a discussion of a number of scriptural references from 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14 and 15 (regarding the weak and the strong). Finally, we would like to connect a number of summary and concluding remarks to the matter.

1. A review⤒🔗

1.1 The discussion←↰⤒🔗

It started with a speech by Prof. Dr. J. van Bruggen, given at a Reformed education conference in 1981, which emphasized among other things how significant it is that persons who bear responsibility for others shape that responsibility by setting clear rules for behaviour and manners. This prompted a critical response from K. Mulder. What had initially started as an internal discussion about the typical life of students and teachers at school took on a much broader scope when Prof. Van Bruggen once again urged the formulation of joint rules of conduct, yet within the framework of the responsibilities that church members have for each other.

The focus shifted from behaviour on the schoolyard to morality in the church square: Should we not we be working towards a renewed Reformed morality? Prof. van Bruggen pointed out that in the area of personal ethics (and morality in terms of the use of leisure time, courtship, friendship, world avoidance, dancing and disco, Sunday observance, the use of alcohol, ways of spending money and so much more), all kinds of older moral rules are disappearing, while new alternatives are not jointly developed.

In his opinion the consequences of an era marked by one’s narcissistic ego also apply to personal ethics, which threaten to become individualistic ethics. When one is questioned about one’s personal lifestyle, an appeal to Christian freedom and personal responsibility functions all too easily as the end of all discussion; Christian liberty thus becomes an impenetrable screen, and behind it everyone can do what seems right in his own eyes. Moreover, the Bible is often used in such situations in a minimizing way: “Where in the Bible does it say that...?” Our area of freedom then begins where the bondage to the literal Bible text ends. In this way the Bible is turned into a legalistic textbook and it is forgotten or ignored that we share the task of processing biblical norms into concrete common rules of conduct for today. Prof. van Bruggen even states: “At a time when people are quickly inclined to say,  ”No Reformed morality except for where the Bible expressly speaks of it,” we believe that this should rather be formulated as follows: “A Reformed morality? Yes — unless the Bible expressly opposes it.”

This warning sign against the impoverishment of a common lifestyle due to individualism and biblicism has loosened many tongues and put many pens in motion. In regional church magazines and in De Reformatie, in men’s Bible study sessions and in student associations, a discussion ensued about what constituted a Reformed lifestyle.

In fact, no one denied that there is at this time an erosion of the common pattern of behaviour (even though many areas remain where we draw the line), but the one person took this much less seriously than the other.

K. Mulder expressed his pleasure that the morals of an earlier generation are no longer adopted uncritically. Rev. C.J. de Ruijter emphasized that free-spirited behaviour should not be tackled with rules that quickly take on a life of their own, but by starting at the root — in other words, with one’s personal decision of faith. He writes, “There is a great danger that rules of morality are put in place that are to be complied with, but that the personal conviction of faith towards God receives too little attention. If children have not been taught to make their conscious choice before God on a daily basis, it becomes easy for them to throw the rules overboard as soon as they are on their own two feet.

1.2 Taking stock←↰⤒🔗

Now that the discussion about a Christian lifestyle has subsided, and with another educational conference on the subject to arrive at a preliminary conclusion, we take a step back and will try to take stock of these discussions. Some preliminary remarks:

1.2.1 An important topic←↰⤒🔗

It is laudable that at the time the issue of the Christian lifestyle was raised by Prof. van Bruggen and that it received a great deal of attention afterwards. After all, this very concretely concerns the question of how we will give shape in the daily practice of our lives to the gratitude and obedience that God requires of us. Experience shows us that indeed the flag of “Christian liberty” can be used to cover up a normless attitude. And behind the apparent generosity of the words “It is up to you to know what to do,” a great deal of laziness and a lack of love may be hidden. The danger is not imaginary that we know quite well with regard to the so-called “bigger” ethical subjects where we should stand — expressing a firm No to abortion, euthanasia, and other of our society’s great evils — while in the “smaller” issues of our personal lives, we are not well prepared to give a firm No to all kinds of normlessness.

Let me give an example: it does make you think when we read in Kivive ¹ how an adolescent person typifies the parties he experiences among Reformed youth: “Let me put it this way: the type of feasts and parties that a large part of the Reformed youth attend does not distinguish itself from an ordinary disco. Swing music and everything else comes out later in the evening...” Yet another example from the same magazine in connection with television use: “It is generally believed that the norms and customs of television viewing have shifted. In the past, much more was off limits... In earlier years, nudity or violence on TV was still shocking, but now it’s hardly even noticed. A program such as Turkish Delight was turned off at our place, but now they even watch Erotic Stories and we don’t even hear any objection to it. It’s rather crazy…” One does not even have to consider such comments as representative to be startled by them.

Are the issues raised by Prof. van Bruggen “mere trifles”? Christ has taught us to also heed the iota and the dots of the Law (Matthew 5:18); and Paul writes, “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise” (Ephesians 5:15). That is an assignment that church members receive together! In the Kingdom of God, the “little things” do matter! The Heidelberg Catechism says that the first commandment includes, among other things, that I would rather forsake all creatures than doing the least thing against God’s will (HC, q/a 94). Attention to ethically small matters (also small in God’s eyes?) is therefore an urgent necessity.

In addition, there is a great deal of uncertainty with regard to going to watch films at the cinema, how to deal with modern literature, Sunday observance, television use, and other issues of the use of one’s time. When such matters are raised, one can notice that there is a great need for a discussion about this. Parents often have questions about the upbringing of their children on these points, especially if it turns out that other parents take a rather different approach. The age-old dilemma applies: How will you, as a Christian, make use of the things of this world and how can you avoid the extremes of world avoidance and worldliness? Where are the boundaries? A contemporary answer is needed. The uncertainty that exists is also evident from the pulpits: one minister will not go as far as another in providing guidelines for personal ethics. One will boldly declare the cinema to be off-limits, while another will not say this..

1.2.2 Multiple results?←↰⤒🔗

It is all the more unfortunate that the question needs to be asked whether the above discussion, despite all the energy that has been put into it, has actually been fruitful. Certainly, plenty of valuable things have been presented, but we still seem to have reached a stalemate position. Among some of the writers, the predominant idea is that Christian freedom should not become something that is noncommittal; that Christians should show solidarity in their conduct of life; that they should make agreements for the sake of mutual unity in lifestyle patterns. With another set the fear prevails that Christian freedom will be affected in this way and that formalism and traditionalism would be promoted.

When we want to move forward together, it is good to look for a cause of this stalemate. In my opinion, this is mainly due to the fact that up to now each side takes a rather general and abstract position: the one argues for a re-evaluation of a Reformed morality, and would like (in general) to formulate more common rules of conduct, while the other fears an intrusion in one’s Christian liberty, and is (in general) wary of any traditionalism.

It is striking that in the discussion that has taken place, concrete rules of conduct are hardly ever discussed, or that these are marginal issues in an argument. You can say a lot about the pros and cons of rules of conduct, but it will probably make more sense to take a closer look at concrete rules of conduct. There is, quite rightly, a fear of individualism in the community of the Church. But just as understandably there is also a correct fear of detailed rules of conduct that have no immediate connection with the teaching of the Bible. If someone wants to attack individualism, and the other traditionalism, you can continue discussing with each other for a long time, but in reality you are talking over each other’s heads, even though you have a right to speak on biblical grounds. Individualism and traditionalism are both expressions of spiritual poverty that threaten the congregation, and we need to be on guard against both.

However, when there are concrete proposals for rules of conduct, it will become clear whether this is a rule that arises from biblical teaching or whether it is an agreement that puts one’s life in a straitjacket.

For example, it makes a big difference whether you insist on a chaste pattern of behaviour with regard to swimwear (truly not a superfluous issue today) or whether you insist on not using your bicycle on Sundays (it cannot be made clear that the Sunday celebration is served with this). Similarly, it makes a big difference whether you agree (again) that engaged young people should not go on holiday together (a rule that is derived from Lord’s Day 41 of the Heidelberg Catechism: God forbids all unchaste acts, gestures, words, thoughts, desires and whatever may entice people to unchastity) or that you would want to determine that a TV does not belong in a Christian household. And so it also makes a big difference whether you insist on moderation in drinking or whether you are going to determine what this moderation means in concrete terms; parents also have an educational task with regard to the latter.

1.2.3 Impure elements←↰⤒🔗

This brings me to another point: it is actually a pity that the discussion was somewhat clouded by a few irrelevant elements. That is how the whole discussion started in the schoolyard. This may lead to confusion: there is an important difference between the rules you as parents have to give to children, which teachers have to prescribe to the pupils, all within the framework of the education of the as-yet immature children, and the rules of behaviour that count for the mature congregation of Christ. Even though the concepts of “education” and “Christian freedom” can easily be misused to cover up normlessness, this does not negate the proper practice of distinguishing guidance for immature versus mature Christians.

Another confusing element can also be pointed out: when the attention for a Christian lifestyle spread widely in the church press, the original assignation of Prof. van Bruggen was sometimes forgotten: much was said in connection with the various Reformed organizations ²  and also about the “fruits of the Liberation of 1944”; yet because of the many trees we apparently could no longer see the forest! Because, however important the attention to these matters may have been, the focus of the conversation had been more specific: “After the liberation, a certain morality has developed in the field of collective facilities, such as Reformed schools, organizations, associations, travel, training etc. (...), but we are now addressing one specific aspect that could pass into oblivion in all of this, namely, personal ethics.”

2. The strong and the weak?←⤒🔗

When there is a difference of opinion in the Christian church regarding the concrete interpretation of a Christian lifestyle, two Bible passages are often resorted to that are known as the chapters about “the strong and the weak”: Romans 14:1–15:14 and 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1. That was also the case here. Prof. van Bruggen and Prof. Douma, as well as Rev. De Ruijter, drew attention to Scripture in Romans 14 and 15, albeit that they did not do so at length. The one emphasized this element, the other focused on something else: it therefore depends through what lenses this matter is looked at! All in all, such use of Scripture, which tends to bring forward only those elements that fit into one’s own conception, is unsatisfactory. This is why we now want to pay closer attention to the overall teaching of the New Testament concerning the strong and the weak. Since the letter to the Corinthians predated the letter to the Romans, we will start with the former.

2.1 Corinth←↰⤒🔗

2.1.1 Who is actually “strong” in Corinth?←↰⤒🔗

Two Scripture passages are therefore considered as “classic” when it concerns the question of the relationship between the strong and the weak. However, we should be careful not to read into the letter to Corinth what Paul later writes to the Romans – and vice versa. The mistake Luther made when he (quoting from memory) attributed words from 1 Corinthians 8 to Romans 14 may well be typical.

What I mean is this, that in the letter to the Romans not only is part of the church counted among the weak, but it also speaks of the “strong” in as many words: “We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failing of the weak…” (Romans 15:1). The subject dealt with in the letter to the Romans does indeed fall under the heading “The Weak and the Strong.” But we certainly cannot use this as a header above 1 Corinthians 8-10! Whoever reads these chapters addressed to the Corinthians carefully will come to the surprising and shocking discovery that clear instructions are given as to how the weakness of the weak should be dealt with, but that Paul is carefully avoiding calling the non-weak as “strong”! It is erroneously assumed that 1 Corinthians 8-10 deals with the weak and the strong. Instead it is about the weak and the other weak ones.

Someone might object: “It goes without saying that the non-weak part of the church at Corinth consisted of the strong ones. Paul had no need to confirm this again explicitly.” However, the “snapshot” that the Corinthian letter gives us of this fledgling missionary congregation proves the opposite.

The congregation at Corinth appears to be a church still in its infancy, not strong (!) enough for solid food: “I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready. for you are still of the flesh” (1 Corinthians 3:2-3a). All sorts of childhood diseases seem to beset the church, such as those of individualism, factions and debauchery. The most serious issue in Corinth appears to be that the members think they are mature. Time and again we read about the spiritual boasting and self-conceit of the congregation. And we also read again and again about the boasting of people who assume that they are strong. Those who are “puffed up” are like a balloon: their strength seems much but it is nothing. Paul pokes right through it. Therefore he does not even think of accommodating the Corinthians in their delusion that they are spiritual powerhouses. The words “we who are strong” of Romans 15 is not appropriate here, but rather: “If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know” (1 Corinthians 8:2) and, “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12). That is also why the only time Paul speaks of being strong in these chapters is in a questioning and warning manner: “Are we stronger than he?” (1 Corinthians 10:22).

At the same time, the boasting and arrogance of those who pretended to be strong in Corinth entailed a contemptuous attitude towards anyone who had any weakness in whatever way. Self-aggrandizement is like dynamite among the communion of saints!

Paul himself experienced the affront of this haughty attitude : “For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account’”” (2 Corinthians. 10:10). Paul has already radically contested this contempt for the weak, which is evident in both letters, in 1 Corinthians 1:27: “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.”

In summary: 1 Corinthians 8-10, the passage known as one of the biblical sources about the strong and the weak, does not deal with the strong.

2.1.2 The issue in Corinth←↰⤒🔗

The Christians in Corinth wrote to Paul about a number of problems that bothered them: for example, they had their questions about marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1) and about the place of unmarried girls (1 Corinthians 7:25). ). Another concern that caused challenges was whether or not to eat the sacrificial food. Where was the difficulty?

Some inscriptions above 1 Corinthians 8 may have the inscription, “The eating of sacrificial meat.” This rendering is too narrow. The word used in verse 1 literally refers to  what was offered to idols. The sacrifices to idols were not limited to meat only:

This offering to the idols consisted not only of the meat of different kinds of animals, but also included crops; in Greece especially barley, and fruits such as nuts, olives, grapes, raisins, and apples. In addition there were sacrifices of flour, bread, milk and dairy products such as cheese. Also wine and oil especially, which, like our butter, was used by the Romans and Greeks for preparing food. A common custom was the offering of cakes, which were apparently eaten a lot. Offerings of game and fish were also made. (L. Batelaan)

Thus, virtually anything that was edible was placed before the idols!

But not everything that was put before the idols was also “consumed” by them. Only a portion of all those offerings was burned on an altar. What was left was partly for the priests, who could resell the food in the shopping centre (the market hall), and partly for the people who brought these sacrifices and who had a meal with this sacred food in the temple or elsewhere.

A Christian could therefore come into contact with food offered to idols in all a variety of ways. This applied not only when he consciously looked for it in the temple of an idol, but also when shopping in the mall or when dining at the invitation of unbelievers. In the market hall, the Corinthian shopping centre, there were also eateries: “If you were invited to a meal in such a Corinthian catering place, you could also run into sacrificial foods marketed by the temple priests.” The problem that presented itself was this: As a Christian, who serves the living God, how should you deal with a society where, consciously and subconsciously, you are faced with sacrificial food at various places and opportunities?

2.1.3 The background to the problem←↰⤒🔗

It is no surprise then that questions reached Paul about this! For a decision had been made in Jerusalem by the apostles and elders precisely with regard to these sacrificial foods. Luke gave a detailed account of this in Acts 15. The wording of the decree of Jerusalem is found no fewer than three times in Acts: first as the proposition given by James (although James speaks of “things polluted by idols”), then in the final text of the decree: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality” (Acts 15:28, 29), and finally, this statement is repeated in Acts 21:25. Both the detailed record of the making of the decision and the repeated wording of the decision itself confirm the notion that this is a rather important decision. That is indeed the case, because two things become clear from this statement.

First, in it the formerly Gentiles Christians are forever freed from the obligation to observe the ceremonial Mosaic laws: this decree thus established Christian freedom in so many words!

Secondly, christians are bound by an obligation to abstain from idolatrous worship: being set free from the ceremonial laws of Moses does not mean an abolition of the (Mosaic) ten commandments!

1 Corinthians 8-10 deals with the practical application of these two elements of the so-called apostolic decree: the pattern of Christian freedom as well as the question of what exactly it means to “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols.”

2.1.4 A difference of opinion?←↰⤒🔗

When there is a difference of opinion in the church, 1 Corinthians 8-10 is often referred to. Does it  not show in a wonderful way how one is to deal with differences of opinion in the church? The danger, meanwhile, is not imaginary that all too quickly we draw a parallel between the situation at Corinth and ours.

Was this a situation in Corinth where two strictly logical, well-researched views opposed each other? No: in Corinth we do not detect a climate of differences of opinion such as are discussed in our time, for instance in church magazines, but rather the setting of a young missionary congregation, which, as far as the Gentile-Christian part is concerned, had previously been steeped in idolatrous thinking. Such a past lifestyle can leave an imprint on people, even after they have come to know the living God, and can be illustrated by the situation on the mission field: people’s previous world of thoughts and feelings and the old moral values do not die off all at once when the new man begins to appear!

So also in Corinth some were not completely free from idols in their conscience (1 Corinthians 8:7). Didn’t these people know that an idol is "nothing" and that there is only one God? It is not realistic that as Christians they were unaware of this. Mental consent with something however, is not the same as processing that knowledge. Verse 7 therefore literally says: “but knowledge is not in(!) all”; it has not yet become flesh and blood, fully integrated in their way of life.

To us it may strike us as somewhat strange, emotionally, when “knowledge” and “conscience” are mentioned in the same breath in verse 7. We should realize that in the New Testament “knowledge” is not only intellectual, and that “conscience” is not exclusively ethical: conscience is also consciousness.

For the weak this means that their consciousness, shaped by idolatry, has still not succeeded in denying the real existence of these idols; that is why, when they eat sacrificial foods, they cannot soberly say: food is food, something that an idol (a “nothing”) cannot change; the idols still have so much reality for them that it is as yet impossible for them to see ordinary articles of consumption in the sacrificial food. The words "yet" and "impossible" in the previous sentence indicate that Paul wanted to provide instruction to the Corinthians. This was clearly dated and situational teaching. There was something else going on than a well-considered difference of opinion: there was a difference in the growth of faith.

2.1.5 Not giving offense = showing a minimum of love?←↰⤒🔗

It is heart-warming to read how Paul responds in a pastoral and wise manner to this problem presented to him: he does not go on the attack, telling the weak that they should have known better, but he urges the congregation to rally around those weak members, and not to make them fall back into their previous way of life: Do not give offence! Paul does not choose the reprehensible aspect of idolatry as an angle of approach here: that will follow later in chapter 10. Here he is first and foremost concerned with brotherly interaction in the congregation. It is not surprising that he chooses this order: after all, the reccurring message of the letter is always: Get rid of individualism in Corinth; rather think along the line of chapter 12: those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable; the less noble parts are treated with greater honour (1 Corinthians 12:22-23). This chapter provides an illustration of that “greater honour”!

“Give no offense” (1 Corinthians 10:32) — what does this mean? Many interpreters have exhausted themselves in warnings that we should not misuse this expression. So says M.R. van den Berg:

This Bible passage is often used in a way that has nothing to do with Paul’s intention. When something is done in the church that deviates from the usual pattern, you will soon hear it said: you should not do this, because there are people who are offended by it and you should not give offense to another. If that were the case, nothing could ever be done outside the regular pattern.

A similar warning often given against misuse of the terminology used in this context is that you ought not to make your brother stumble (verse 13: “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” [ESV]; “... lest I make my brother to offend” [KJV]). Surely it is not a matter of frantically avoiding any irritation?

These remarks are certainly in order. Because "giving offense" does not refer to simply causing some irritation or excitement, but putting a stone in your neighbour’s way, which the other person bumps into so that he stumbles and falls down. A snare can also have the same effect: you get caught in it; that is what is meant by the word "offense" as used in the KJV. The original Greek word speaks of being “scandalized.”

When the weak in Corinth see other members of the congregation eating food that had been sacrificed to an idol temple without batting an eyelid, it does not bother them at all; they are not “offended,” but look at it with approval: “See? They are doing it too!” In the meantime they fall into a snare and such brothers — for whom Christ died! — are in danger of being lost! Leaving stones that might trip up someone, or setting traps in the way of the weak, takes little effort: Their consciences are already so weak and now you give another punch too. By your “knowledge” the weak person is ruined, as verse 11 literally states: “And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.” Therefore, in the way that you are eating in the idol temple without any scruples, you can hurt your brother, cause him to fall, make him to sin, and even cause him to perish.

But however true and correct as this may be, this is about much more than causing some irritation to other church members. It does not mean that we can interpret this chapter in a minimizing way: as if Paul were taking a stand for an unrestrained experience of Christian liberty. But it is a freedom where there is only one limit, namely the imminent danger that another member of the church will be lost because of your conduct. The warning, “Know well what it means to offend” should not lead to a reassurance along the lines of “Go ahead and do what you like in the church unless someone is lost through your conduct.” In this way, a necessary correction threatens to erode this entire chapter! Individualistic or provocative behaviour in the congregation cannot be justified by the argument that Paul means something else with offensive conduct than an irritating style of behaviour.

For what is the perspective of 1 Corinthians 8? Paul really makes a strong plea here for actually taking each other into account in the congregation, culminating in his strong assertion: “Therefore, if food offends my brother [or: makes him stumble], I will never eat meat again, lest I offend my brother” (1 Corinthians 8:13). Similarly, verse 9 says very emphatically: “Take care that this "right" of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” It is not my experience of freedom but the salvation of the whole church that is made central here by the Holy Spirit. Not the fact that someone in the church is in danger of perishing, but even the fact that he is weak, should move me to take extra care of him, not in a minimalistic way, but as much as possible. In this context we may also point out that the majority of the manuscripts in Romans 14:21 do not limit taking-the-weaker-brother-into-account to the extreme cases, but instead it states, “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine, or do anything that causes your brother to stumble [or "to be hindered,” or ‘weakened"].” Therefore do not tempt your brother to sin in something where he is weak. That is why I prefer not  to say that freedom in Christ has a limitation, namely “the limit of love.” Why? Because our freedom in Christ is not delineated or limited by love, but experienced in and motivated by love (Galatians 5:13)!

2.1.6 “All things are lawful for me...”←↰⤒🔗

When the theme of Christian liberty is discussed, reference is often made to Paul’s well-known words: “All things are lawful for me.” No wonder, because these words not only sound rather unusual (and therefore leave an impression) but are also used a total of four times—and therefore make an even greater impression (see 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:23)!

However, we need to be on guard not to use these words as a simple slogan. Good listening is required here, not to smother Paul’s indeed far-reaching expression in almost extenuating dilutions, but to allow those words to speak in their own power.

What Paul is doing here is that he elaborates on a saying that threatened to become an easy slogan in Corinth. Corinthian freebooters rallied around the adage “All things are lawful to me” Paul wholeheartedly agrees with the content of this saying in Corinth, but he gives two additions: “All things are lawful... but not all things are helpful.” Everything is permissible, but not all things build up” (1 Corinthians 10:23).

Moreover, the translation “everything is permissible” is incorrect. Paul does not say: “Anything is allowed, but…!” In these chapters it is always about the use we are allowed to make of what God has created, about the rights we have (1 Corinthians 8:9; 1 Corinthians 9:4) We may not do all things, but we may use everything that God created: None of it is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4).

We can therefore describe Paul’s words as follows: all things are at our disposal. All things: such is the unlimited scope of our Christian liberty! The broadness of this liberty is not restrained by Paul’s additional words, but only further explained: Do not lose sight of the ultimate goal — the building up of all and everyone.

That is why the Corinthian Christians are free to do their shopping in the market hall, without restrictions and freely. In the midst of the hustle and bustle of the market-hall in the midst of fawningly fastidious Gentiles and Jews, free Christians may purchase what suits their appetite, without qualms, with a clear and good conscience, for the earth and its fullness is the Lord’s (1 Corinthians 10:25-27,  Psalm 24:1). Also, during a possible communal meal with an unbeliever, it is not necessary to make a fuss. Instead, eat calmly everything that is set before you without being anxiously fastidious; it is not necessary to ask about the origin of the food on your own initiative. Whether or not the food had been consecrated to an idol, it tastes just as great, for the free Christian gives thanks to his God for it. Only when the unbeliever himself points out that it concerns sacrificed food, have the liberty to say “No, thanks,” so as not to give the impression that you attach any value to the idolatrous consecration.

Thus, in a society with all kinds of both pagan and Jewish regulations on eating and drinking, Paul showed weak people their strong position as free people! A liberated person may, in all openness and without compromise, say "yes" to God’s good creation and to God’s good creative gifts, as what Luther described as “the most free lord of all.”

2.2 Rome←↰⤒🔗

Obviously, there can be no question of providing a full analysis of 1 Corinthians 8-10 within the scope of this article. The reader will have noticed that we opted for a more synthetic approach. A complete exegesis is also not necessary for our purpose: after all, we are mainly concerned with those elements that relate to differences in the church of Christ. This is why we can now turn to Paul’s letter to the Romans to consider some elements related to those differences.

2.2.1 Rome compared to Corinth←↰⤒🔗

At first sight, the letter to the Romans deals with almost the same issues as those that arose at Corinth: after all, here too it is about the relationship between the weak and the rest of the congregation, and once again in connection with the question: What are you allowed to eat?

On closer inspection there are significant differences. For instance,

1. In Corinth there is no clear dividing line between church members who did eat food offered to idols and those who did not: both the weak and the others eat sacrificial food (1 Corinthians 8:7 and 10), only from a different motivation. In Rome, however, there is a clearly visible difference: the weak eat only plant-based foods.
2. In Corinth the problem is that the freedom in Christ turns into licentiousness and individualism. The weak threaten to become victims of the others who do their own thing in a haughty way: “Surely I do not have to leave my sacrificial food because others can not stand it?” In Rome we encounter a completely different difficulty: People do not associate with each other without obligation; they do not let each other go free, but declare their own attitude to life to be the only correct one, and they judge and condemn the lifestyle of the others.
   In Corinth people give each other space (without commitments); in Rome there is, in effect, no room at all for differences in life practice; in a meddlesome and lordly fashion, each pushes the perspective of the other aside.
   So we make a curious discovery here: in fact, the mentality in Rome is exactly the opposite of that of the Corinthians! But the effect is similar: the communion of saints is hurt and the weak become victims. Incidentally, the weak themselves participate strongly in the absolutization of their own conduct and thus give the impression that they are better able to defend themselves than the weak in Corinth. They pass judgment on the brothers who do eat (Romans 14:3, 10); for this reason Paul’s admonition in Romans 14:1-12 is directed equally at the weak, who think themselves strong enough to judge.
3. In Corinth there are different attitudes toward the foods sacrificed to idols. In Rome, however, the sacrificial food is not declared to be “polluted,” but instead a total abstinence from meat consumption is propagated: for their diet, the weak use exclusively vegetable-based foods and herbs: the weak are vegetarians (and also teetotallers: Romans 14:17, 21). In addition, there is a difference in the valuation of certain special days (see Roman 14:5-6).
4. As indicated earlier, in contrast to the church in Corinth, there is clearly talk of strong ones in Rome. Paul counts himself among these: “We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak” (Romans 15:1).
5. In Rome, unlike in Corinth, there is a more conscious choice among the weak. Here, at least, there is no question of people who are “not yet free from the idol”; the expressions used in verses 5 and 6 indicate well-thought-out choices being made, and Paul himself insists on this: “Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 5:5b).

2.2.2 The weak at Rome←↰⤒🔗

What motivated the vegetarians in Rome? Rev. P.H.R. van Houwelingen writes about this:

Life in the city of Rome at that time – especially in the higher circles– could be characterized as lavish. Life was lived exuberantly, also in eating and drinking habits. The most diverse kinds of meat were consumed in large quantities, in an almost animal-like frenzy. Due to frequent alcohol consumption, the standard was diluted. “Orgies and drunkenness” were common, as Paul wrote in Romans 13:13. That was the lifestyle of the "culture" – ample reason for many Romans to choose a different lifestyle.

Also Rev. C.J. de Ruijter is of the opinion that the intemperance of the pagan meat feasts was the underlying cause of the abstention from meat on the part of the weak.

It should be added that it must not have been only the animalistic excesses of the pagans that caused the weak to abstain from meat, but that the eating and drinking feasts were tainted with a religious flavour! Paul’s words in Romans 14:14 point to this: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who considers it unclean.” The term translated here as "unclean" has the notion of cultic impurity in the New Testament. Did Jewish influences perhaps play a role among the ascetics of Rome (Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:15)? Actually, the religious flavour of the pagan meat orgies makes the disgust of the weak all the more understandable.

It is well possible that we have to understand the attachment to some particular days in view of the religious character associated with pagan celebrations: did the weak perhaps organize their own alternative holidays on these festivals? Did the weak in Rome oppose the carnival celebrations with their own “carnival”? (The word "carnival" may be derived from the word “carnivale”: farewell, meat!).

2.2.3 How should their conduct be in the home?←↰⤒🔗

Eating and drinking – is there anything more homely? It is striking that Paul’s way of speaking is dominated by a homely tone and style. To begin with, it is worth pointing out the words with which Paul makes his start and which will be taken up again later at the conclusion of the argument: “Welcome the weak in faith and do not quarrel over opinions” (Romans 14: 1). Compare this with Romans15:7: “Therefore, welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.” This "welcoming" means accepting, receiving into the community or into the house — giving each other a "home" in the congregation! And then the first house rule is this: Remember that you are not the master of the house, but a servant among servants under the authority of the one Lord. The servant in the house has to be a humble brother to his fellow servant. The weak are not to judge and the strong are not to despise one another.

It is striking that Paul does not indicate that the solution to the imperious capriciousness in Rome is a stronger sense of freedom (“You ought to give each other more freedom”), but in a stronger sense of responsibility towards the Lord of the home.

Paul does not now emphasize the authority of the house owners, but that of the only Lord Jesus Christ. Each time he points to the only Master who is in charge: Not some form of mutual non-commitment, but our bondage to God is to dominate our mutual interaction. In the house of the Lord, one domestic slave is not above the other. We are not servants of each other, but of Christ, and because he reigns we must never act in a tyrannical fashion: then we step into God’s authority. “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?” (Romans 14:4). In verses 6 through 12 this is further elaborated upon.

Later on everyone will have to give an account of his actions to God. This warning has nothing to do with “thinking from your own perspective,” but everything to do with our thinking based on Christ. In the same way, Paul points time and again to Christ (Romans 14:15, 18; Romans 15:3, 5-8).

A schoolmasterly style of condescension in the church, manifested in a judgmental or contemptuous attitude, denies the rights of the Master. That is why in this house the rule does not apply: “Eat what is put in front of you,” but rather “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Be absolutely sure of your cause, whether you eat a vegetarian diet or whether you eat meat: it has to be a matter of faith (Romans 14:23)! In a similar way, Paul can say of himself in strong terms: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14). When Paul therefore is speaking about possible differences in the church, we do not end up with an endless “I think...” approach, but with the necessity of action based on a real conviction of faith.

In the household of the Lord it is wrong for the people of the home to ignore or shun each other. Instead, each should pursue peace and mutual edification. The members of the household are to build up the house, not tear it down: “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food” (Romans 14:19-20; Romans 15:2).

2.2.4 Legitimate differences?←↰⤒🔗

What conclusion can we draw from these house rules formulated for the church at Rome? Rev. C.J. de Ruijter wrote about this: “Paul not only points out differences in Romans 14 and 15, but he also legitimizes those differences. One cannot say to the other that he has no place in the church because of his views.” We certainly agree with the latter. There is a legitimate place for the strong and the weak, but does this also mean that we can speak of “legitimate differences”?

In my opinion, this is going a step too far. Rev. de Ruijter himself indicates that Paul clearly chooses a position. Paul counts himself among the strong (“we who are strong”). The designation “strong” implies that there is something imperfect in those designated as “weak.” But even apart from this contrast,, the description “legitimate differences” appears to us as going too far. The Holy Spirit neither approves nor disapproves. For in Romans 14 and 15 the Holy Spirit teaches us how to deal with differences among members of the household: He teaches the strong and the weak to live together, and that is something more than legitimizing differences.

Speaking of legitimate differences has the drawback that it is static. After all, does what is lawful need to be changed? And this static aspect is precisely something that is completely lacking in Paul’s treatment. The designation “weak” (and who would like to be called that?) is in itself a great incentive to become strong.

Similarly, the clear position of Paul, the called apostle, is like a writing on the wall: when the apostle, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says he is convinced that nothing is unclean in itself, it should serve as a signpost for everyone. Paul does not force anything, and pastorally points the way to proper conduct between the weak and the strong, but at the same time he also points in a clear direction (Romans 14:14). We should not resign ourselves to a situation, but instead pursue what promotes peace and mutual edification.

And Paul’s pastoral speaking culminates with the prayer: “May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:5-6). If Paul had spoken in static terms, legitimizing differences, this prayer would be rather odd: Should we all be thinking alike? But now that Paul has spoken in a pastoral way we can understand this prayer: May the Lord grant that the existing differences would not be the end, would not be permanent.

Incidentally: even if it is not entirely correct in our opinion to speak of legitimate differences in connection with Romans 14 and 15, this does not mean that they cannot exist in the congregation! Pursuing what promotes peace and mutual edification is not the same as pursuing a dead style of uniformity. But those differences can be approached from the positive realization that the Lord has given us different assignments and gifts, rather than from the fact that there are weak ones in the congregation.

2.2.5 Being right and still being wrong←↰⤒🔗

One of the most important lessons we can learn from Romans 14 (and from 1 Corinthians 8) is that a person can be absolutely right and yet… he can still be wrong. With all the differences between Rome and Corinth, we now arrive at the same inference: do not put a stumbling block or a snare (even if it is made of truths!) before the feet of your weak brother.

Paul says to the judgmental Romans: “Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (Romans 14:13). In the ensuing section Paul shows that only one point of view can be characterized as strong, but that it is not a sign of strength to insist on it to the detriment of the weak.

In saying this Paul does not relativize the truth (which is important to keep in mind here!), but he shows how the truth of the gospel should function — not in a destructive, but in a saving and upbuilding way. It can become a great danger in the church — a divisive issue that devastates the church—when people, deeply convinced of their own right, wielding the weapon of truth, do not build each other up, but tear each other down. For then evil can be spoken of what in itself is good (Romans 14:16). It may be very tempting in such a situation to insist that “truth prevails over everything.” But when there are no errors that threaten the truth and the church, this adage is still misplaced. After all, upholding the truth is not an end in itself, but needs to serve the wellbeing of the entire congregation for whom Christ died. The strong may be expected to be strong enough to meet the weak while maintaining an awareness of other people’s sensitivities (in other words, a conviction of faith, Romans 14:22).

3. In conclusion←⤒🔗

It is about time to finish. In this final section we will make a number of summarizing and concluding remarks on what we have discovered so far.

3.1 Personal or Christian freedom?←↰⤒🔗

First something about the terminology: in the discussion (see above) the term “personal freedom” cropped up from time to time in addition to the expression “Christian freedom” [or “liberty”]. Having paid attention to Paul’s teaching, it is clear to prefer the concept of “Christian freedom.” Obviously, I do not mean to deny that the freedom we have in Christ is a freedom that each child of God shares personally. The freedom we receive is both personal (“am I not free?” 1 Corinthians 9:1) and communal (“For freedom Christ has set us free,” Galatians 5:1).

It is difficult, however, to see why the first (personal) should be given precedence over the second (Christian): in Christ, after all, the so often used dilemma of individual versus collective has been overcome. The concept of “personal freedom” may easily start to function as a choice in an incorrect and unfruitful dilemma. The expression “Christian freedom” (think of the strong Christocentric speaking of Romans 14 and 15), however, points to a fruitful way out of this dilemma. In the New Testament, “reedom” is primarily a redemptive-historical concept and has nothing to do with the idea of “personal privacy” today. In the same way, the concept of “personal responsibility” may be used at the expense of “shared responsibility” and vice versa. Christian responsibility cannot be captured in either one or the other.

This realization will also help us in our further reflection about our personal as well as communal freedom in Christ: it is neither useful nor correct to contrast solidarity and personal resolve of faith. In Christ each person is free and responsible, and all are free and responsible together.

3.2 Weakness←↰⤒🔗

A second point is this: based on what the Bible teaches us in 1 Corinthians 8-10 we would do well to take into account in our Christian lifestyle not only the weakness of the weak, but also the weakness of the apparently strong. The Saviour said, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). This weakness is life-threatening, hence our prayer, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” As the church confesses, “In ourselves we are so weak that we cannot stand even for a moment. Moreover, our sworn enemies –the devil, the world, and our own flesh– do not cease to attack us” (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 52). The strong ones in Rome are only relatively strong; with a view to the whole church in Rome, Paul concludes with a prayer to God, “who is able to strengthen you” (Romans 16:25). In other words, the strong have not yet arrived.

B. Kamphuis has pointed out the danger that we would exchange the certainty of the covenant for self-assurance: “Because even the spirit of this present time knows certainty. It is the certainty of the empowered, assertive human being who stands up for himself and takes himself as the starting point of all things. When the spirit of this time takes control of the certainty that befits the Reformed people, then the certainty of the covenant degenerates into self-assurance.” An attitude of self-confidence then tends to underestimate the seductive power of sin: those who assume that they are strong run the risk of underestimating the powerful enemy. The pornographic images on the TV, the party that got out of hand with too much alcohol, the physical interaction when engaged couples go as far as possible (“as long as there is no intercourse before marriage”): you can withstand it... Being addicted to the movies (it’ is a secondary matter whether this is at home or at the cinema), it will not do you any harm... However, in all these ways the reality of the pull of sin and the reality of a living Satan are no longer taken seriously. Satan not only works with snares that bring you down suddenly, but also with the slow-acting poison of becoming accustomed to lawlessness and the blurring of a Christian sense of decency.

3.3 Being strong together←↰⤒🔗

We live in a different situation than the churches at Corinth and Rome. They were faced with the task of getting rid of a pagan past. Today we are confronted with an encroaching form of modern paganism and with the methods of infiltration used by this pagan influence. We, too, breathe the air of a lawless world. One of the great dangers for the church today, therefore, is that of secularization. The question is whether the Christian church has prepared itself sufficiently for the new situation in which it has come to live.

Paul has taught the churches in Corinth and Rome that you desperately need each other to survive in the confrontation with the pagan rules of conduct. This does not mean that the church members should observe uniform rules of conduct in all respects, but that the church members look after each other and therefore look after each other’s lifestyle. It implies that they help and strengthen each other, correct and stimulate each other.

The disturbing element — as far as I am concerned — is not so much that the brothers and sisters in the one household sometimes act differently, but that the brothers and sisters sometimes talk so little about this among themselves. What will become of looking after one another, inciting each other to pursue what is right? Instead,: “...let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24). Hebrews 3:13 even urges us: “Exhort one another every day,” and that in connection with the real danger of someone being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. People who are weak all need the helping hand of the communion of saints. Anyone who would scornfully speak about “social control” here has not understood that the Lord has laid down the rule for people who are weak as soloists, that they will be strong together, in him!

3.4 A recommendation←↰⤒🔗

A look back at the history of the church will teach us that it has always been extremely difficult for the church of Christ to escape the influence of the surrounding culture: the church almost always was affected by it. That is why it is to be feared that the current climate of extreme ethical tolerance and freedom without responsibility does not leave Christians untouched: it is the poisonous atmosphere that is breathed in daily. A lawless climate of life raises the suspicion that the Christian church will be seriously challenged in that regard.

Practice confirms this assumption. The words of Prof. J. Douma (1979) have lost none of their relevance: “When we ask ourselves what constitutes the greatest danger that is threatening us, the answer would be the love for the things of this world.”

But then it is also essential to place extra sandbags at the point where the dike has to endure so much. Then we will not just get by, merely emphasizing the importance of a personal bond of faith with Jesus Christ (however important it is!) or merely stressing the need for a holy life (however important!). Because the one without the other always turns into a caricature! It is precisely based on a living faith and a warm love that the church of Christ is urged to pay extra attention to its own conduct of life in a lawless time.

For this reason the preaching and pastoral care should insist not only on seeking refuge in Christ, but also on fleeing from sin. And that is why free Christians will do well to guard the shared freedom, by expressly speaking about the many facets of our Christian lifestyle: for example, in sessions to prepare for marriage, during congregational meetings, through courses for professing members, and through Bible studies.