We don't always have to ask questions of conscience!

For the second time in two weeks I'm writing a post expressing a disagreement with John Piper.  I'll have to come back and speak highly of him soon lest folks think I'm somehow against him.  It just happens that a couple of my buttons have been pushed lately on some things where I have a disagreement with Piper, but I want everyone to know that I still think he is one of the great Christian leaders of our day.  So please, if anyone who knows Piper or loves Piper reads this, please don't think I'm turning against him.

This push-button came from fellow Piper-lover Michael Spencer who is wrestling with Piper's views on the use of money and resources.

Michael says:

I just listened to a Piper Q&A down at DG radio. In this Q&A, there was a question something like this: "Is it OK to spend money on hobbies- like musical instruments- rather than to send it to missions or use it directly for a "Kingdom" purpose?"

This sort of question is not at all uncommon in Piper circles. Piper stresses missions and he talks a lot about a "wartime" lifestyle. His chapter in Desiring God on Money is very challenging to anyone used to the typical American attitude toward spending.

But the other day, Denise and I were discussing Piper, and I expressed my frustration that he has trouble clearly articulating the "God-glorifying" aspects of things "in and of themselves," but tends to say there must be an intentional, "God-centered" use of things; a "Kingdom use" where the thing is received with thanksgiving and dedicated to God.

So, the questioner was asking about buying a mandolin, and Piper suggested that if it were dedicated to the Kingdom, it was acceptable. I found this rather sad, in that music, in and of itself, is a created good, and a God-glorifying thing of beauty. There is little that is as important to me as a sense of the "God-givenness/God-glorifyingness" of things of beauty...JUST AS THEY ARE. Without being "dedicated" to God, but just in their existence.

It's a small thing to some people, but I think it's really significant. The doctrine of creation is something evangelicals need to rejoice in.

Agreed! And I just want to elaborate with two Scripture passages.

I Cor. 10:23-30 says:

²³“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. ²⁴ Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. ²⁵Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. ²⁶ For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” ²⁷ If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. ²⁸ But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— ²⁹ I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? ³⁰ If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 . Standard Bible Society: Wheaton

This is a tricky passage in some ways.  First of all, this is saying that we don't have to be constantly vigilant regarding the propriety or impropriety of what we do - hence Paul's words that we can "eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience."  In this situation it was known to all that some of the meat sold in the meat market had been offered to idols.  But the believer was under no obligation to try to ferret out which pieces of meat had been offered to idols and which hadn't.  The believer was free to eat whatever he wanted without worrying about whether he was sinning in eating.

Now please don't misunderstand me here.  This last paragraph assumes a couple of things - the believer is doing all he does for the purpose of glorifying God and his primary motivation is seeking the good of his neighbor. 

This just affirms the classic understanding that there are some thigs which are indifferent - neither right nor wrong in and of themselves.  Eating meat is one of these.  There are things which are not indifferent in and of themselves and we must be constantly vigilant about these things.  But there is a category of things out there that is indifferent and we don't have to constantly be troubled in conscience about them.

The caution here is that, in regard to things indifferent, we are to refrain from using our freedom in any way that will cause a weaker brother to stumble.  But we need to be careful in what we mean by this.  This does not mean that we restrain our freedom for the sake of anyone who may be offended by what we do.  For instance, we do not have to restrain our freedom for the sake of not offending a Pharisee.  A Pharisee is very different from a weaker brother.  A weaker brother will see us doing something that, though indifferent, had a sinful connection in their past life, and will be tempted to fall back into that sinful pattern.  A Pharisee on the other hand is in no danger of falling into a sinful pattern.  The Pharisee isn't going to follow our example into sin, the Pharisee is simply going to arrogantly condemn us.

However, there are those who advocate that we ought to refrain from all indifferent things because weaker brothers are present everywhere.  The truth is that, nearly anything anyone does has the potential of offending someone somewhere.  I remember reading a book on how Disney teaches their employees to give directions to their patrons.  They do not point because in some cultures around the world, pointing is a rude or vulgar sign.  So, the Disney employees are instructed not to point with their index finger, they must use some other gesture. 

But does this mean that the Disney employee is not permitted to point with their index finger when they go home for the evening, because of the possibility that there is someone, somewhere in the world who may get wind that they pointed and would be offended?  It is a silly example, but the answer is "of course not."  There are multitudes of examples I could offer in Christian circles that are potentially offensive to someone somewhere.  This goes from watching TV to playing cards, to women wearing pants and any number of things. 

The exhortation to restrain one's freedom for the sake of a weaker brother is not an exhortation to restrain one's freedom for the sake of a hypothetical weaker brother somewhere.  It is an exhortation to restrain one's freedom for an actual, flesh and blood weaker brother who is on site - whom you know may be tempted into a sin of idolatry if they see you eating this particular piece of meat that was offered to idols.

But getting back to the point raised by Michael Spencer and John Piper, this discussion of eating meat sacrificed to idols is summarized in verse 31, where it says:

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all the glory of God.

The point is that there is a way of eating meat or refraining from eating meat that is glorifying to God.  And Paul's point seems to be that the default position is that we go ahead and eat the meat without troubling our conscience about whether or not this particular instance where I am eating this particular piece of meat is glorifying to God.  It is not that we are permitted to be unconcerned with the glory of God, it is that we understand that the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, so I may assume that I am glorifying Him by eating from the fulness He has provided.  Again, not everything we might partake of can be partaken of in a way that glorifies God, but there is a wide swath of creation that can.

The second passage I would reference is I Timothy 4:1-5:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, ² through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, ³ who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. ⁴ For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵ for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 . Standard Bible Society: Wheaton

It might be that there is some type of proto-gnostic background to this, where Paul was dealing with a view that regarded earthly, temporal pleasures and sinful in and of themselves, while only that which was spiritual was good.  What seems apparent from the text is that those who had departed from the faith were in fact claiming to be adhering to the faith, by requiring a higher standard of discipline and sacrifice.  It seems that these folks were calling on Christians to show a greater commitment to Christ by abstaining from certain foods and marital pleasure. 

This has the appearance of spirituality and commitment, yet Paul says this a teaching of demons.  We are again back the matter of things indifferent.  Marriage and food are both creations of God and are good in and of themselves.  So, the default presumption is that we may engage in both without asking questions of conscience.  This default position becomes modified if a sinful element is introduced into either.  For instance, if a believer is considering marrying an unbeliever the default position of the goodness of marriage is no longer in view.  If, in my eating, I am becoming gluttonous, the default goodness of the food is no longer in view due to my corruption of it.

And so, I think Michael is right.  There are many things in life we can enjoy without asking whether or not this thing or that thing is "dedicated to the kingdom."  We don't have to "dedicate to the kingdom" those things which God has already created for His glory.  We simply thank Him for them and use them in a manner that pleases Him.

On the other hand, Piper is right on in the sense that there is a line we draw somewhere.  There is a subtle line between feasting and gluttony and Piper is right that we can, and probably often do, spend God's resources on our pleasures to the exclusion of the kingdom.

Still, I don't like the tone of the listener's question and by that I mean that it is a shame that the questioner Michael was referring to even had this worry.  There seems to be some kind of gnostic worry that if what I am doing can't be tied to a specific spiritual purpose then I shouldn't be doing it.  There is a presumption of guilt here.  Or, there is a situation where the questioner begins with doubt, and has to prove to their conscience that what they are doing won't dishonor God before they do it.

I especially like Michael's words:

I found this rather sad, in that music, in and of itself, is a created good, and a God-glorifying thing of beauty. There is little that is as important to me as a sense of the "God-givenness/God-glorifyingness" of things of beauty...JUST AS THEY ARE. Without being "dedicated" to God, but just in their existence.

He's right and the only thing I could add to them is that there are a lot of the more mundane things of life that are given by God that are glorifying to God simply in their existence.

So yes, there are many things in this world of which we must ask questions of conscience, to know whether or not we are glorifying God in the use of them.  But there are more things than we realize that are good in and of themselves simply for the fact that God created them, and we ought not to trouble our consciences over them.