I’ve just been thinking about the Lechaion Road in Corinth, where the meat market was situated. It’s clear that the place was inundated with shrines and temples and idols – and I can’t imagine that it was possible for people to buy non-idol meat. And so I assume that it’s for this reason that Paul ends up saying, “Eat anything bought in the marketplace without raising questions on the grounds of conscience.” In other words, for practical daily-living purposes, ignorance is bliss. Buy & eat the meat, without asking questions about it… but if someone draws to your attention the fact that it’s been sacrificed to an idol, then avoid it, for their sake.
I wonder if there’s some sort of parallel in cultures that are immersed in capitalism – where it’s impossible to eat without participating in the (arguably) idolatrous system: We are, for practical daily-living purposes, to participate without raising questions on the grounds of conscience – we’re not called to be hermits. But if someone asks us whether our participation in a certain scheme or money-making venture is effectively pursuing the idolatry of greed… what then? I don’t know…
RSS - Posts
That’s a really interesting perspective on how that passage might apply today. Seems Paul was often very pragmatic. That’s why I have trouble turning some of his directions to the churches he wrote to into a sort of new Torah that must be obeyed like they were law.
Bryan L
I think Paul’s situation, being primarily religious and social, does not match well with the type of environmental, ethical, humanitarian questions that we are facing today. Paul’s argument seems to be, “God doesn’t care if the meat was sacrificed or not, so do what you want in your own home. However, if it really bugs your brother…” We need to focus on the first part of Paul’s argument, namely that the issue of eating the particular meat in the Corinth market has no negative theological implications. Is this analogous to the issue today?
I don’t know what you have in mind when you say “it’s impossible to eat without participating in the (arguably) idolatrous system.” I would argue that the system is idolatrous in large part because it is centered around the illusion of the consumers “right” to, for example, eat meat on a daily basis. To raise the amount of beef that we eat on a daily basis has profoundly negative environmental and humanitarian implications. Furthermore, the places that sell this meat constantly “lower” the prices by cutting corners, often times with their laborers’ paychecks.
I wonder if the argument might actually apply in the opposite of what you propose. When we are at our homes, we should be theologically concerned consumers who do not accept the depraved status quo of our society and seek to change it in our own diets. However, if we visit a friend or family member’s home, we should not feel obligated to quiz them about how their meat was raised or where it was purchased. Really, now that I write it out, I don’t know that the latter half of this holds up. But I don’t think we can chose to ignore the first half. What do you think?
I appreciate you posting about this. I don’t see this conversation going on a lot in Christian circles. We need to be talking about these things and wrestling with these issues.
Thanks for your thoughts guys.
My own thoughts are that Paul didn’t think eating idol meat was theologically insignificant – He tells the Corinthians to “flee idolatry” both for the sake of others, and for the sake of their own salvation: Those in Corinth who think they are “strong” enough to mix with idols are kidding themselves, and are in fact playing with demons. So the concession that they may buy and eat things sold in the marketplace without raising questions of conscience (unless they are quizzed about it) is the one pragmatic concession that Paul offers.
So I wouldn’t disagree with you that we should always be theologically concerned consumers – we should always be aware that playing with greed is, in Paul’s terms, playing with demons. I guess my ponderance is just that this knowledge may have to involve making pragmatic concessions at times: Perhaps a rather weak example might be:
“If a friend offers you a cup of Nescafe, drink it without raising questions on the grounds of conscience. But if they point out to you, ‘This coffee has been produced by a company that oppresses the poor’, then do not drink it, both for the sake of the person who told you and for the sake of conscience.”
So in practical terms I guess I’m envisaging something pretty similar to what you describe
Matt
Wouldn’t it be more like this (if one is a vegetarian, and this is proper):
If a friend offers you a sweet, eat it without raising grounds of conscience. But if they point out ‘this sweet has gelatine in it and thus is made from dead animals’ then do not eat it for the sake of the person who told you and for the sake of conscience.
I broadly agree with your point however. It is most frustrating too hear people trot out the “you criticise capitalism but still buy from Tesco” line. I’ve gotta eat and I try my best!
ahh that’s probably an exceedingly good parallel – Tesco as the Corinthian marketplace!