IN TERMS OF both meaning and objective, the life of faith is to reflect a "wisdom from above" (I Cor. 1:17-2:14; James 3:17). At the same time, God's gift of reason can often serve the interests of that wisdom. As one of our Bible College professors was wont to observe, "When Christ takes our sins, he does not take our sense."
Scripture offers numerous illustrations of the point. "The Sabbath was made for man," Jesus once declared, "and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). In other words, meaningful purpose inheres that which God ordains. It is not, nor has it ever been, His design to arbitrarily create rules for mere rule's sake. For all their vaunted "holiness," the Pharisees typically missed this point.
Nor has today's Church always been immune to confusions of this nature. Some of us readily recall when, within some religious circles, one of the marks of valid "spirituality" lay in the fact that their women did not wear shoes with the toes cut out. (No, this is not a joke. Despite a certain inclination to the contrary, we shall not further belabor the point with a litany of additional meaningless legalisms.)
On another occasion, Jesus found the exercise of reason useful in defending his having healed a man on the Sabbath: "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do evil; to save life, or to destroy it?" (Luke 7:9). In association with this episode, Matthew notes Jesus' further appeal to logic in that if Sabbath-related restriction can be suspended for the sake of a sheep in need, "of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?" (Matt. 12:11,12).
In writing the believers at Corinth, Paul likewise addressed the issue of rationale. Some of their church's newer converts were yet struggling with the "pull" of recently renounced paganism. For those solidly grounded in the faith, such days and difficulties were but a memory. That the immediate culture and its idolatrous underpinnings permeated all aspects of contemporary life and involvement, including the market place's practice of selling food earlier offered to idols, did little to undermine their faith. For those yet battling established societal influences, however, the matter could present a serious challenge. How then to define the Church's needful response?
Paul's answer: "Use common sense!" (I Cor. 10:19-33). For the believer to participate in idolatrous feasts would obviously contradict his professed commitment to Christ. Furthermore, his so doing might well jeopardize the weaker brother's sense of courage and resolve. Logically, the believer should here abstain. On the other hand, when purchasing groceries at the local market, or when an invited guest at another's home, one should not create - nor seek to create - an issue over whether the dinner roast came from the local pagan temple by way of the meat market.
The objective here was not one of countenancing compromise in relation to essentials. There would be more than ample opportunity for the Corinthian believers to take a stand on matters vital to the faith. At the same time, there are areas wherein logic itself should provide a sense of direction.
One final point: In the traditional Jewish confession of faith( i.e., the "Shema") one was to "love the LORD his God with all his heart, soul and strength"(Deut. 6:5). In Christ's New Testament recitation of this charge, it is profoundly significant that he also included "loving the LORD with one's "mind" (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27.
We should not be surprised for, as earlier noted: In taking our sins, Christ did not take our sense.
Burl Ratzsch
