Stumbling Blocks

I had a couple of interesting experiences lately that got me thinking.  One was a dinner party I helped prepare at which were some of the highly regarded “old guard”, and in some ways the theological standard bearers, of one of the most conservative denominations in America.  As a part of the evening meal, they enjoyed a glass or two of wine, something I thought nothing of at the time.

A few days later a pastor told me of a volunteer at a youth event who had been drinking beer while the kids were bowling.  This brought up certain standards that they preferred folks like that to adhere to in order to avoid being “stumbling blocks.” 

These two incidents got me thinking about how much had changed in regards to this issue in the church while I’ve been around.  It reminded me of some information that I’d come across some time ago and motivated me to try to systematize my own thinking on the issue. 

The information I refer to comes from a book that I read in the early 1980’s entitled “How to Read the Bible for all its Worth” by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart.  It totally transformed my approach to good bible study and when I went to seminary I was intrigued to discover that it was one of the required texts in my Introduction to Biblical Interpretation class.  As far as I know, it is still in print and for my money, the gold standard of books on the subject of Biblical Interpretation.  In their chapter on the hermeneutics of the Epistles, they use the issue of “stumbling blocks” as an example of how to (or not to) bring a 1^st century principle into the 20^th (at that time) century.  They note that the issue being addressed in the relevant passages (1 Cor. 8, Rom. 14) have to do with eating meat or drinking wine that had been offered to idols in pagan rituals.  The fact is that eating or drinking such things should made no difference to a mature Christian, or one not from a Jewish background.  But to a 1^st century Jew, it was so incongruous in their minds with anything that God would be a part of, that they could find no grounds to embrace Christianity if it included such eating or drinking, and thereby their faith would be “destroyed.”  They take pains to note that this says nothing about what might simply “offend” someone else—it is about what would literally make it impossible to have a saving faith.  Their point is that there is simply no modern day equivalent to this.

And yet, the “stumbling block principle” remains a very widely used tool in deciding our orthopraxy.  One common example is, of course, this issue of alcohol consumption.  Churches that I have known actually require staff or volunteers to adhere to a strict prohibitionist policy on this issue based on this principle.  I wonder if that is necessary or useful, or even detrimental in regards to our mission.  That may seem an odd thing to say, but as far back as 1978 Joe Aldrich (no liberal theologian) was advocating the consideration of enjoying a bottle of wine with your neighbors, or even including beer with your block parties in his book “Life-Style Evangelism.”  At the time, it seemed like a pretty radical idea to me, but now even the old stalwarts of conservative churches such as mentioned previously would, I know, have no problem with connecting with their neighbors in these ways.  Think about it this way:  If it is true that a “stumbling block” is something that prevents a non-believer from coming to faith, then perhaps it is refusing their offer of a glass of wine at dinner or a beer at the ball game that would really qualify for that term.  When they perceive us as self-righteous and people that they have no wish to be like, it just reinforces the stereotype of the Christianity they’ve been avoiding. 

But isn’t that then a compromise of the biblical prohibition on drinking, and a hypocritical accommodation to our culture?  Well, don’t tell Jesus that—John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine and they said he had a demon.  Jesus came doing both of those things and they accused him of being a glutton and a drunkard (Luke 7:3-35).  No serious scholar believes that he didn’t enjoy the fruits of his labor (miracle) at Cana, or was drinking grape juice at the Lord’s supper.  In fact, Paul’s criticism of some in the church at Corinth that they were letting people go hungry while they got drunk (1 Cor. 11) confirms that adult beverages were a normal part of the agape feast in the early church gatherings, as they would have been at any social occasion where food was consumed.  The elders of the early church were simply encouraged not to drink too much in the pastoral epistles—no prohibition was contemplated (1 Tim. 3:3,8; Tit. 1:7). 

In my experience, utilizing the stumbling block principle in regards to this issue usually has as its subtext the assumption that any alcohol consumption is de-facto sinful behavior.  The fact is that kind of thinking is a fairly recent addition to our church existence thanks to the puritans, and certainly no part of the biblical paradigm.

In some churches I have been a part of, prohibition for leaders was required because in our culture there is a problem with alcoholism.  Are we supposed to believe that is a recent phenomenon?  Of course not, and any understanding of history as well as the exhortations in Scripture against drunkenness attest to that and underscore what the issue really is. 

As a chef, I have to say that I appreciate the value that God gives to a good glass of wine with a good meal. 

“Even so, I have noticed one thing, at least, that is good.  It is good for people to eat well, drink a good glass of wine, and enjoy their work—whatever they do under the sun—for however long God lets them live.”  (Eccl. 5:18, NLT)

“On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all people, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines.”  (Isaiah 25:6)

So what should be our bottom line on this issue?  At the very least, it surely belongs with the “non-essential” doctrines that we can afford to offer much grace toward each other in.  Even if the “stumbling block principle” cannot apply based on good exegesis, we can still set aside our preferences in the company of those who may be offended just because we as Christians are not “rude or self seeking”, because ultimately love is not that (1 Cor 13), and it is a violation of the law of love that Paul is really underscoring in 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14.  Clearly we recognize the issue of addiction and accommodate our practices in the presence of people with those problems, as would be appropriate, or deny ourselves if that is our own experience.  And using alcohol as a means of intoxication, especially of the sort that leads to bad behavior (Eph. 5:18) should be something that we as Christians don’t even have to remind each other not to do.