Getting it Wrong about The Weak and the Strong (Part 4): Why do Disputable Matters Matter to God? (Continued)
In the previous post in this series, I gave two reasons why disputable matters matter to God. This post continues with the same theme, and highlights two more reasons why we cannot afford to treat “matters of indifference” with indifference. There is just too much at stake.
3. The Salvation of the Weak Believer is at Stake
The “Stumbling Block” Principle
We must never place a “stumbling block” before a brother or sister in Christ (14:13, 20, 21).
A stumbling block is something that leads someone into sin or spiritual ruin. The concept typically appears in contexts “where salvation is at stake” (Schreiner, Romans, BECNT, 2nd ed., 711).
Food that is clean in itself—the meat that the strong want to eat—becomes evil when the eating of it causes a brother or sister to spiritually stumble and “fall” (14:20).
The issue, therefore, is not whether a practice is legitimate in itself—both Jesus and Paul affirm that no food is unclean in itself (14:14)—but whether it causes spiritual stumbling for another Christian. Paul repeats the idea for emphasis (14:13, 20, 21) so that we are in no doubt as to the seriousness of what’s at stake.
In fact, this “stumbling block” principle is so important that Paul concludes, “it is a good thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble” (14:21). Similarly, in 1 Cor 8:13, Paul says, “If food causes my brother or sister to fall, I will never again eat meat, so that I won’t cause my brother or sister to fall.”
God calls us never to do anything—however legitimate in itself—that could cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble. That’s the principle.
If the strong ignore the warning and insist on their right to eat meat, they will (among other things) “distress” (14:15), “tear down” (14:20), and even “destroy” a brother or sister in Christ.
There are three levels of potential spiritual harm here, in increasing order of severity.
(1) The Weak are “Distressed” by the Eating of the Strong (14:15)
The weak become “distressed” (14:15) either because they observe brothers and sisters in Christ violating (what they believe to be) a divine norm, or because they follow the strong’s example, eat against their conscience, and then become “persuaded that they [my emphasis] have violated a divine norm” (Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., 712).
I incline towards the former explanation, but both views fit the overall context. Either way, if my brother in Christ is distressed by my behaviour, I am “no longer walking according to love” (14:15), which is the non-negotiable rule of conduct.
Thielman notes that “the verb ‘is distressed’ (lupeitai) refers not merely to being ‘upset’ (CEB) but to the sort of severe inner turmoil that one might experience from the death of a loved one (1 Thess 4:13) or a broken relationship (2 Cor 2:4).” (Romans, ZECNT, 645).
Remember that the weak are convinced that abstaining from meat is a critical part of a faithful, God-honouring lifestyle. Should eating non-kosher food be normalised in the church in Rome, as far as the weak are concerned the church is openly flouting God’s standards of holiness and has lost a key part of its distinctiveness from the pagan world. That is distressing for the weak.
Again, the fact that the weak were wrong in their belief about the uncleanness of meat is beside the point. If the strong’s behaviour leads to distress among the weak, it means that the strong have abandoned the way of love (14:15), since “love does no harm to its neighbour” (13:10).
If we love our brothers or sisters in Christ, we will not harm them; we will not cause them distress.
(2) The Weak are Dismantled by the Eating of the Strong (14:20)
Paul says, “do not tear down/dismantle (kataluo) the work of God for the sake of food”. The verb in v. 20 is a different word to “destroy” used in v. 15. It is the opposite of edifying or “building up” one’s brothers and sisters (14:19). It refers to the process of dismantling or disintegration by which the weak are eventually destroyed.
If the strong—who remember are in the majority—eat meat at the weekly church fellowship meals, then they make the behaviour an integral, normalised part of the church’s life together. As such, the weak are “forced into a corner” (Thielman, Romans, ZECNT, 645).
Regardless of whether the strong actively pressure the weak to eat meat, the pressure is naturally felt every time the weak sit down at the lunch table with the strong. It’s not simply a question of active pressure; it’s also a question of inadvertent influence (see 1 Cor 8:10, and Paul’s statement “if a brother sees you” etc.)
Remember that the weak cannot eat meat “to the Lord”, by faith, and in submission to Christ’s lordship (14:6-9). Therefore, if they eat, their conscience condemns them. Paul explains that, “Whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (14:23).
As soon as the weak start eating against their conscience, a process of spiritual disintegration has begun, since an activity that is central to church life has become full of doubt, distress, and self-recrimination.
The weak are now trapped. They either learn to habituate themselves to accepting and practicing behaviour that dishonours the Lord, which deadens the conscience and opens the door to further possible sin, or else they leave the church altogether. Either scenario is spiritually ruinous.
(3) The Weak are Destroyed by the Eating of the Strong (14:15)
The end point of such a spiritual dismantling is destruction (14:15). The apostle Paul consistently uses the language of “destruction” (apollumi) to refer to eternal ruin (Schreiner, Romans, BECNT, 2nd ed., 710).
Although it is tempting to think Paul must be thinking of a more minor sort of spiritual injury, a temporary setback in Christian growth, the language Paul uses points in a much more serious direction.
Personally, I think Paul is building on Jesus’ teaching recorded in Matthew 18. In Matthew 18, Jesus contrasts “welcoming” “little ones” (Matt 18:5) with “causing them to stumble” (Matt 18:6), and “despising” them (Matt 18:10). Notice how similar Paul’s ideas are in Rom 14, where he calls on the church to “welcome” the “weak” (Rom 14:1), to not “despise” them (Rom 14:3), or “cause them to stumble” (Rom 14:13, 20).
I doubt very much that these close connections are accidental. I think Paul sees the weak in faith/conscience as a particular manifestation of the vulnerability in the faith that Jesus represented with the image of “little ones”. It’s the sort of vulnerability that’s always present in Christian communities.
In Matthew, the vulnerability comes from being of low status or social disadvantage; in Romans it comes from having a more scrupulous approach to a disputed matter of Christian practice.
That said, the important thing to notice is that not only does Paul’s language—“stumbling block”, “tear down”, “destroy”—consistently refer to spiritual ruin in the NT, but the likely background to Paul’s teaching in Jesus’ own teaching also suggests that the eternal destiny of the weak is at stake, since Jesus’ warning to the person who causes little ones to stumble is so severe (Matt 18:6) that it makes no sense unless the gravity of the offence is similarly of a momentous nature. [For more on Jesus’ warning in Matt 18:6, see my reflections here.]
Should the weak believer continue on their perilous journey away from faithfulness to the Lord, their eventual spiritual destruction is attributed to the strong: “Do not for the sake of food destroy someone for whom Christ died” (14:15).
It is a shocking statement. And Paul clearly intends it to be shocking.
The strong destroys the weak believer, not in the sense that if the strong eat meat, they immediately confine the weak believer to destruction, but in the sense that such eating is the decisive trigger for a spiritual dismantling that, if not stopped, will end in destruction.
The person who pushes a friend out of the raft to cascade down dangerous rapids doesn’t necessarily murder their friend—the friend may be able to grab a low hanging branch; someone might dive in to rescue him; he may be able to fortuitously avoid hitting all the rocks before alighting on a sandbank etc.—but if his friend dies, his death will not be attributed to the water, the rocks, or a failed rescue attempt. It will be attributed to his friend’s reckless, callous push.
Great caution needed
Back to the warning about “putting a stumbling block” in the way of the weak. It’s not a stumbling block if I hold a different viewpoint to you. It’s not a stumbling block if I’m at home tucking into steak and wine with my family, since you can’t stumble over what you can’t see (14:22).
It is a stumbling block if I openly promote and publicly practice a behaviour that you regard as sinful in the eyes of the Lord, regardless of whether that behaviour is, in itself, wrong.
We need to be very, very careful indeed about publicly promoting, embracing, or mandating a practice or behaviour that other believers cannot engage “to the Lord” (14:6), with thankfulness (14:6), as something honouring to him.
We must avoid the contemptuous attitude (14:3) that disrespects or demeans a sister in Christ for having a principled objection to something that (in our eyes) is so obviously unobjectionable and of secondary importance. We have no right to say “it’s not a primary issue, it’s no big deal, get a grip and focus on more important matters”, if we ourselves do not then immediately offer to give up, for the sake of our sister, what we agree isn’t a big enough issue to divide over.
Paul would say to us, “So it’s not an essential matter then? So why would you press ahead at the expense of love, peace, and unity? Why would you insist on following your convictions when your sister’s salvation is at stake? Why would you be so cruel as to push her into perilous spiritual waters?”
4. The Salvation of the World is at Stake
After Paul instructs the Christians in Rome on how they should deal with their dispute, he goes on to outline his mission plans (15:14-33). In particular, he wants the church in Rome to become a future base of operations: “I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while” (15:24).
By “helped on my journey”, Paul means personal and practical support for his ongoing mission.
Several commentators note that dealing with the internal dispute is integral to how Paul prepares the church in Rome to become a supportive mission base. But what exactly is the connection between the weak and the strong learning to live together in love, and the church becoming a good mission partner for Paul?
There are at least 4 connections:
(1) Doing nothing to make others stumble is an essential missional mindset
Paul wants the strong believers in Rome to do nothing that would make their weaker brothers and sisters stumble and fall. The very same stumbling block principle also applies to seeking the salvation of outsiders.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul models such a comprehensive lifestyle of other-person centredness. On the basis of his own example of “becoming all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:22), he exhorts the Corinthians to “not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God” (1 Cor 10:32). The same mindset that applies in the church is to apply outside the church.
(2) Prioritising kingdom values is attractive to outsiders
Those who serve God in righteousness, peace, and joy, are “acceptable to God and approved by people” (14:18). If the strong limit the exercise of their freedoms, they will both avoid their practice being condemned by the weak (14:16), and commend themselves to outsiders who will “approve” of their way of life.
Paul’s reasoning here is similar to Jesus’ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:13-16) and the apostle Peter’s as well (1 Pet 2:12). A life of love, peace, and joy is inherently attractive.
(3) Gospel faithfulness in life is necessary for gospel integrity in mission
In the last post in this series, I argued that if we don’t allow the gospel to shape our approach to disputable matters, we can subvert by our lives the gospel that we preach with our lips. If people see from our behaviour that we don’t really believe the gospel, they will be less receptive to our message.
The believers in Rome cannot, with integrity, get behind a gospel mission that proclaims justification and reconciliation, if their lives preach judmentalism and disunity.
(4) Only a united church displays the hope the world needs
Paul draws a link between the church’s unity and both its, and the world’s, hope.
Paul says that “everything that was written beforehand was written for our instruction, in order that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (15:4). Notice that he then repeats God’s “endurance” and “encouragement”, not as the source of hope, but of unity (14:5-6): “may the God of endurance and encouragement give you a united mind etc.”
The church’s unity is so integral to the fulfilment of God’s Old Testament promises (15:7-13), that unity and hope almost become interchangeable in Paul’s mind. The miracle of the uniting of Jew and Gentile in Christ is the visible manifestation that God’s great promise of establishing an everlasting kingdom of righteousness, peace, and joy is now coming to fruition. It’s the proof that hope has dawned.
In a world divided and torn apart by deep-seated enmities, the presence of the church as a multinational, diverse people living together in harmony and love is the beacon of hope that a hopeless world needs.
In short, as the Puritan Richard Baxter says,
“Undoubtedly if all Christians were reduced to a holy concord, it would do more to win the heathen world, than all other means can do without it. It is the divisions and the wickedness of professed Christians, that maketh Christianity so contemned.” (A Christian Directory, Part 3, Ch.8, Direction 4)
Summary: Only an (insider) Welcoming Church is an (outsider) Welcoming Church
If we don’t truly welcome one another (14:1; 15:7), it’s very unlikely that any so-called “welcome” of outsiders will be a genuine one.
Some churches give considerable thought to how to make the intro, the music, and the notices more accessible to outsiders—an attempt at being more “welcoming” or outsider friendly—while trampling on the sensibilities of, say, the fifteen percent of older church members who would be dancing in the aisles with joy if the young music group allowed them to sing a Watts or Wesley hymn a couple of times a month.
There is something very sad, and somewhat perverse, when we think we are being “welcoming” but all the while neglecting the welcome that God explicitly commands us to give in the New Testament. Welcoming outsiders is good and proper. But welcoming the weak is non-negotiable and integral to being a gospel-centred church.
To riff off the apostle John, “If anyone doesn’t welcome their brother or sister whom they have seen, how can they welcome the outsider whom they have not (yet) seen?” (1 John 4:20)
The irony of prioritising outsider welcome over insider weaker-member welcome, is that what Paul believes will actually make unbelievers sit up and take notice is Christians from vastly different backgrounds joining their voices together in harmony; different cultures and convictions blending in unison in a way that is completely without parallel in the world (15:1-13).
Loving the weak has much more evangelistic purchase than any attempts we might make at being outsider friendly.
In the next post, we will step back and ask, Why does Paul instruct the weak and strong in the way he does? What is his pastoral strategy? What principles are driving him? What can pastors today learn from the approach of pastor Paul?
Share this post:
