Things indifferent, adiaphora, Christian liberty. The question has plagued the church since the time of the apostle Paul, who was forced to deal with it in the churches of Corinth (1 Cor. 8-10) and of Rome (Rom. 14). Yet the problem is not so much understanding the Biblical principles as applying the principles without harming a brother in Christ or breaking the unity of the church.
There are five Biblical principles that apply, and all of them are easy to understand.
The first principle is that there are things indifferent (adiaphora), things of which Paul says “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful” (1 Cor. 10:23). God commands some things, like worshiping him and obeying authorities. God also forbids some things, like blaspheming his name or stealing. There are other things which God neither commands nor forbids. Paul uses the examples of eating food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8), eating all things vs. eating only vegetables (Rom. 14:2), or esteeming one day above other days (Rom. 14:5). Of the first Paul says, “Food does not commend us to God” (1 Cor. 8:8). Eating food sacrificed to idols is not necessary to the service of God or our acceptance by him. Refraining from eating such food does not make us more pleasing or better servants. The thing is indifferent in itself.
But, secondly, Christian consciences can respond differently to the things neither commanded nor forbidden. Some Christians understand that eating food sacrificed to idols is not sinful, and they can make full use of their liberty in Christ to eat such food. They know that an idol is nothing, that there is only one God who created and owns all things, that we live for him, that there is only one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and that we live through him (1 Cor. 8:4-6). They may eat without troubling their consciences.
But some Christians stumble over food sacrificed to idols and other things indifferent. They do not have the knowledge (meaning full understanding and conviction) that the strong have. Eating troubles their conscience, and when it does eating becomes sin even though it is in itself a thing indifferent. Their conscience and consequently their faith are weak, incorrectly or inadequately informed. Nevertheless, they must not violate their consciences: “Some with conscience of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled” (1 Cor. 8:7). “To him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (Rom. 14:14). “But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23).
Thirdly, the stronger brother’s use of his freedom may become a stumbling block to the weaker brother. We also call stumbling blocks offenses or causes of stumbling. They are things that cause others to sin. “But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” (1 Cor. 8: 9-11).
Therefore, fourthly, Paul commands the stronger brother to restrict the use of his freedom for the sake of the weaker brother. His use of his liberty in such circumstances is a sin against the weaker brother and against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12). “Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died” (Rom. 14:15). So Paul concludes 1 Corinthians 8 with a promise: “If food [offered to idols] makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”
Fifthly, then, the principle to govern our behavior in these matters is not the unrestricted use of our freedom in Christ (1 Cor. 10:29), but love for the brother (1 Cor. 8:1-3). “Knowledge [also the knowledge that an idol is nothing] puffs up, but love edifies.” Paul does not denigrate knowledge but knowledge without love. “Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2). Love seeks the good of the brother, not the unrestricted use of liberty. If you do not love your brother, you do not love God (1 John 4:20). The most important thing is not knowing for yourself but being known by God (1 Cor. 8:3). “Therefore, let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended [caused to sin] or is made weak” (Rom. 14:19-21).
Those principles are not hard to understand. The problems begin when we try to apply the principles in particular circumstances in the church.
Paul mentions one problem in the first few verses of 1 Corinthians 8: pride, especially pride in our knowledge. Knowledge is good. Pride in knowledge is not. Remember this: strong and weak are not two fixed categories to one of which every brother must belong. Your brother’s conscience may be weak in the current matter (whatever it is), but you may be weak in the next. The roles may be reversed tomorrow, and it may be you relying on your brother’s love rather than he on yours.
Paul mentions a second problem in Romans 14:2-3: judging. Judging means condemning a brother for something that is not in itself sinful or despising him (v. 14) for his weakness. Judging may work both ways: “let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats… Who are you to judge another’s servant?” We must judge about sinful things, like idolatry and adultery because it is the only way we can fulfill our calling to admonish and to practice church discipline. But judging in the adiaphora is sin. Love will guard against unrighteous judging.
There are other problems that Paul does not mention directly in 1 Corinthians 8 or Romans 14.
The first is identifying what things are indifferent. For example, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Frederic Godet puts circumcision into this category and refers to Paul’s discussion of it in Galatians. It is tempting to agree with him because it is obvious that God made allowance for the Jews to continue to observe the ceremonial law for a time. But circumcision for religious reasons is not really an indifferent thing. Being circumcised implies submission to the whole ceremonial law (Gal. 5:3). Observing the law, including bloody sacrifices, is a denial of the completed work of Christ. The concession to the Jews was a temporary thing to give them time to adjust to the new realities. The time of adjustment ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Today, I think we may say, the time has passed. Circumcision is not a good example.
But what about the use of instruments to accompany singing in the worship services? Most would hold that it is a thing indifferent. We might prefer the use of instruments or vice versa, but we would not have a principle objection to either practice. Nevertheless, there are some who say that it is wrong. They would call the use of instruments image worship and a violation of the second commandment. In fact, Reformed churches from the time of Calvin to the middle of the seventeenth century did not use them. Who is right? Is it, or is it not, an indifferent thing?
Or what about crosses in church auditoriums. It’s very common to see a large cross behind the pulpit. Most of us, I think, would object to a crucifix, but probably not very many to a simple cross. Yet there are some who do object, who say that such symbols are forbidden. The Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 98) says, “we should not be wiser than God, who will not have his people taught by dumb images, but by the lively preaching of his word.”
Those who believe that instruments and crosses are wrong, are they right or weak? Those who accept them, are they wrong or strong? You can probably think of examples from your own experience. They do not necessarily pertain to public worship. Identifying what is indifferent and what is not is difficult. Christians will not agree about these things while the earth remains. What do we do?
A second problem arises out of the problem of identification, that is, that the weak do not know that they are weak and therefore seek to impose the weakness of their conscience on others. They think that eating food sacrificed to idols is not only sinful for themselves but for everyone, and they try to make a rule against it. They want to bind the conscience beyond what God requires. This has been called the tyranny of the weaker brother.
But the strong may also err. Because they have knowledge they may conclude that the weaker brother is making a mountain out of a molehill and insist on the use of their liberty despite the weaker brother’s conscience. Or the strong may decide that the weaker brother is trying to impose on their liberty and refuse to make any concession.
What is to be done?
Let the weak make very sure that their doubt about a practice is a matter of conscience. The color of the carpet, however hideous it may be, is not a matter of conscience. The manner of distribution of the elements of the Lord’s Supper, whether brought to the people in the pew or given to them as they come forward, is not a matter of conscience. The question is not, “Does this bother me?” but “Does this cause me to sin?”
Let the weak also try hard to discern between sin and things indifferent. Eating food sacrificed to idols is not sin in itself. That the weaker brother is not fully persuaded of this is due to a lack of useful and perhaps necessary knowledge. Let him not remain weak, but grow in the faith and overcome his unnecessary scruples.
On the other hand, let the strong be careful not to justify sinful practices. Perhaps the brother whom he considers weak is not weak but right.
Furthermore, let the strong not lightly dismiss the doubts of the weak but rather assume the posture of Paul. Both 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 teach a readiness to concede certain lawful things to the weak, to protect from harm those for whom Christ died.
Neither the five principles described above nor recognition of the difficult questions things indifferent raise will make the answer to every future question easy. But loving the brother more than self will help greatly. Perhaps the real problem in many of these discussions is not a question of right versus wrong, but the self-love that keeps us from esteeming our brothers better than ourselves.