Last week I worked through Paul’s amazing passage on food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8-10. In some ways, it seems like he could have answered the pertinent questions in just a paragraph. Can Christ-followers buy meat in the Corinthian market area that had been sacrificed at a temple and then eat it at home? And, can they, when invited, join in the meals held at the temples by those who had brought sacrifices to Apollo, Venus, or some other so-called god or goddess?
But it took three whole chapters to answer it because Paul was interested in much more than those two questions. He was interested in the kind of community commitments being formed among the Christians in Corinth.
So, he insists that love trumps knowledge. In other words, just because someone knows that the meat can be eaten with a clean conscience doesn’t settle all situations, because there were weak brothers and sisters whose consciences weren’t so sure.
He isn’t talking about people who’d be upset that their narrow understandings were being violated. He isn’t speaking about them being offended. He’s addressing a very real possibility of falling away. They had come out of paganism. They remembered well the mystery and ecstasy of those pagan temples; they could recall the thrill of the celebratory meals; they still had powerful memories of the way moral restraint was often lifted in that environment (including all the women and boys who were available as prostitutes).
One smell of that meat — meat that they thought was associated with these other gods — might lead them down a road to their old lives. The “strong Christians” (not a term used in this section, but rather found in Romans 14) might know that it isn’t a package deal; but these weaker brothers and sisters might be caught up into the whole scene of idolatry.
It’s important to know what he’s saying. And equally important to know what he isn’t saying. This passage has been used far too many times to endorse the position of the person with the most rules and the most narrow way. It has nothing to do with that (in most situations).
Here are a couple insightful comments I came across.
First, from Richard Hays, who’ll be speaking at ACU next month:
“The ’stumbling block principle’ is often erroneously invoked to place limits on the behavior of some Christians whose conduct offends other Christians with stricter behavioral standards. For example, it is argued that if drinking alcohol or dancing or dressing in certain ways might cause offense to more scrupulous church members, we are obligated to avoid such behaviors for the sake of the ‘weaker brother’s conscience.’ The effect of such reasoning is to hold the entire Christian community hostage to the standards of the most narrow-minded and legalistic members of the church. Clearly, this is not what Paul intended. He is concerned in 1 Corinthians 8 about weaker believers being ‘destroyed’ by being drawn away from the church and back into idol worship.”
And then this from N. T. Wright (of course!):
“Sometimes people from a very narrow background, full of rules and restrictions which have nothing to do with the gospel itself and everything to do with a particular social subculture, try to insist that all other good Christians should join them in their tight little world. But in a case like that the rule-bound Christians are in no danger of having their consciences damaged. They are not being ‘led astray.’ They are quite sure of their own correctness. Paul is dealing with a very different case.”
I think you made a good summation of your point. But your emphasis is on where this passage doesn’t apply. I’d be curious to know where you think it does apply. I think consuming alcohol isn’t going to cause strong Christians to fall away, but what about those who have turned to the church after being broken by alcoholism? I don’t immediately see a lot of modern day implications outside of those who come to us with addictions. In other cultures outside the U.S., there is probably a more direct application to be made.
I also think it is interesting to note that this issue in Corinth cuts across socioeconomic lines. The rich, due to eating meat on a daily basis, had disassociated meat from pagan ritual. The poor, however, having access to meat only through public temple meals, still had a strong association with pagan worship. That is, the issue less about doctrine than the two different “worlds” of the rich and the poor in the same church and their mutual incomprehensibility.
Excellent, Mike. You have addressed one of the major questions in the church for ages. Must I give up a practice that I have a clear conscience about because one with a more narrow view says I must? Granted, I might want to give up that practice, but to insist that I must or sacrifice my soul has always seemed suspicious to me. Thanks.
Once, a professor took us on a tour.
One of the tour stops included a Hindu temple. Imagine, a Hindu temple right there in Memphis, Tennessee!
Anyway, after answering our questions, the priest offered us some fruit. I saw him pick up a banana from a shrine to Ganesh.
Granted, it wasn’t meat, but I ate that banana, and nothing happened.
Who says this passage isn’t relevant today?
Excellent points. I have heard that “weaker” argument beaten to death in the past…over others heads!
Thank you for addressing this issue. When I was a student at Harding, I heard one professor speak to this passage in a way I had never before considered. He pointed out that every time someone invokes the “weaker brother” argument over an issue that he or she feels should be restricted, that person is actually admitting that he or she is, in fact, the weaker brother whose faith could suffer a blow because of someone else’s conduct. Yet so many people who quote this scripture for their own agenda do so with an air of self-congratulations for their “stricter” and therefore, somehow “better” faith. That analysis of the scripture and the logical conundrum it presents have always stayed with me.
This is a really interesting study when you take the other situations into account, like the fact that eating meat sacrificed to idols was SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the Church leaders in Acts 15 (which Paul was a party to). Again in Revelation 2, causing others to eat the meat offered to idols is a charge leveled against the Thyatira church (probably as a metaphor for causing believers to fall away back into idol worship). Any thoughts about the fact that Paul went against the command of the church leaders about the requirements for gentiles to be disciples of Jesus?
Unless you are drinking out of one cup in an upper room you are in trouble.
Mike,
So what are some valid “meat eating” weaker brother topics?
It sounds all hypothetical to me. Thanks
Also, Kyle, in response to your thought about how it can apply, I think that if you are around people who have come to Christ from other religions you would see the application. A case in point is a couple who came out of Islam. When they went with a group to Israel, the mosques began broadcasting their calls to prayer in the afternoon. To the “old” Christians, this was terrible and annoying noise, but to the “new” Christians, they said that it was “sweet sweet music”. It was literally a danger to their souls to be around the Islamic worship.
Another application of this passage might be rubbing Buddha’s belly if you came out of that religion. You think?
http://jesusisnowhere.blogspot.com/
this may come as a shock to many readers. but if you read this passage literally it become quite dead in our modern age. like much of paul’s writings and much of the bible. the beauty is in the metaphor.
I’m going on record right now:
If anyone who reads this blog will lose their faith if I eat a medium rare Joe Allen’s steak or a plate full of Harold’s BBQ…
I’m truly sorry for you. I will pray that you can find it again.
So what it all boils down to is love. Love above all else. Love God. Love your brother. Love.
God forgive me for dragging the conversation through the muck of “situation ethics” - but is it possible that there are things that are neither intrinsically right nor wrong, yet can be very wrong (or very right) in a given context?
And that - as so many have already pointed out - love for God and love for others must be the determining factor in pursuing those actions?
Is it possible that they are meant to provoke teaching moments; sharing times of conversation about God and how we perceive Him; about others and how we perceive them? Even arguments, in which love should finally win over law?
Sounds like it is outdated from the comments. I appreciate the BBQ comment but I was being serious. Thanks.
Mike,
This reminded me of Sunday with the jack and Jill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M4_IlbaZHA
stike the
That’s brilliant. How does Wright know that? “very narrow background, full of rules and regulations”… I’ve never met any group like that.
I have never known anyone who struggled with the temptation of meat sacrificed to idols, although the banana offering is interesting. I have actually known people who were very offended by the Buddha shrine in a business place and would never go back. I must confess that the idea that an individual or group with very conservative views holds the rest of the church hostage is both difficult and painful for me.
I may be missing the point, but it seems to me that there is an “on topic” thread in Matthew 5:21-24. Murder was not the subject of this lesson, nor was anger or name-calling. It wasn’t about offering my gift at the altar, either, except in the way it was limited. It seems to me that the message was that nobility of spirit dictates my response to someone who is angry or upset with me.
When Jesus said “You have heard… anyone who murders will be subject to judgement. But I say anyone who is angry is subject to judgement, and anyone who says to his brother ‘Raca’ is subject to the Sanhedrin, but anyone who says ‘You Fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell,” he followed with the connective THEREFORE.
The stated problem is followed by a proper action. Since my brother’s anger toward me or offense held against me could place his soul in jeopardy, I have a responsibility to reconcile. I am compelled by my love for him. Jesus didn’t even discuss who was wrong and who was right. It seems this is easily expanded to any issue of offense, whether I am right or wrong. Before I can offer my gift, I need to be conciliatory with a brother who has something against me. It is so important that my offering to God needs to wait. Hmmm.
Would this apply to brothers and sisters who have quietly left their home church because changes have come too fast and too far for them to accept?
Would it apply to someone whose strict convictions (right or wrong) lead them to offense by others in the church?
Would it apply to someone who needs help but is not served by the church when they ask?
Would it apply to someone who truly believed drinking alcohol was sinful and found out I occasionally drank a glass of wine with my friends?
If love is a higher card than correctness or knowledge, (which I believe to be true), what do I owe the weaker brother who takes offense at my correctness or the actions which I take in that correctness? Do I owe him less because I am right and he is wrong? Do I just go on, forget about it, and let it blow over? If I attempt to be reconciled and they refuse, have I really done my part? When brothers leave the church because they are offended or are not ready to go a certain direction, or have been hurt by a member of the church, is it OK that I don’t even notice the amputation?
Tough questions, these. I wish I could say I had all the answers, but unfortunately I don’t even have all the questions. I am convicted, however, that God is calling us somehow to be one in our differences, to show compassion to those who cause us pain, and to notice when others hurt.
I think Kyle’s initial comment is quite useful. A good application of the scripture is to recovering alcoholics, to whom seeing and smelling a glass of beer or wine would actually, truly be a sore temptation with potentially devastating consequences.
What is NOT a good application is the old bible-thumping brother Bubba who’s never had a drop of alcohol in his life looking down his nose and saying, “You can’t have that glass of wine because it offends me.” Bubba is not a “weaker” brother in this case; he’s implying he’s actually stronger.
Perhaps tangential but perhaps important: if you are cooking for a potluck dinner at which a large number of people will be present, it may be wise not to cook with wine or other alcohol unless you are pretty sure no recovering alcoholics will be present, especially if the recipe does not call for a long cooking time in which all the alcohol would be cooked off.
Edgar, I am offended at your use of “Bubba”!
Country Fred - Great question. I like people who know how to ask a good hermeneutical question.
Meat sacrificed to idols isn’t a burning issue in Abilene. But, as I said, most of these three chapters is pursuing something else: what kind of obligations we have toward those “for whom Christ died” (8:11).
As I draw parallels, I think of the different ways we most often treat people in this world. Sometimes we use them; at other times we try to please them (which can be equally damaging); and still other times we are satisfied with tolerating them. Over against that, Paul is seeking to develop the Way of Jesus: we’re to love them.
The applications for me begin right at home.
“love trumps knowledge”….brilliant!!!
Country Fred,
I once participated in a small Christian group where one of the new Christians was a recovering alcoholic who had been sober about as long as he had been a Christian. One of the ways that our group showed love to the weaker brother was to never get together for a movie that involved any drinking (which limited our selection). We knew that almost anything related to alcohal would/may cause him to fall and give his life back to the god of alcohol, so we who were stronger refrained on behalf of the weaker.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Many, though certainly not all, Christian leaders spend far, far too much time and energy concerning themselves with how others should present themselves to the world. Sorry, but I see very little love in that. Jesus was concerned with a person’s heart. And, just how mature is a mature Christian that is offended so regularly?
Thanks Rex and Mike.
Richard Beck has an excellent post on this very subject at his blog:
Experimental Theology: The “Yes, But…” Church
I hope we can develop the ability to discern the gray areas, and become “Yes, But…” people.
The care Paul uses in his words is a thrilling insight of a brothers love for his fellow Christians. How he wraps his heart, mind, body and soul around this seemingly minor problem. He truly follows Romans 12:3-5. He knows everyone is important to the Lord.
We had a long wonderful study of Corinthians here at North Atlanta. It put me back in time to see what those brothers so very long ago were dealing with, and I thank Don for how he presented that study.
I would still love to hear some wisdom on how it is okay for Paul to contradict the Council of Jerusalem.
This was a good post. I’m going to print it out and think about it during lunch today.
I like your questions, G’ampa C. From what I’ve read about changes in certain congregations, I wonder sometimes if the members even notice when people leave a body that is moving in a direction they don’t agree with. Are they just written off as “legalists”
I attend what I though was a pretty liberal, loving, active body of Christ here in Arkansas, so I was shocked by reading some of the more “progressive” (I hate that word because what does that make me? Regressive?) bloggers that lo and behold, I’m conservative! Never mind that we have a thriving Hispanic ministry and a food pantry that feeds 100s of people a week. Never mind that we housed many Katrina families. Never mind that our youth and some of our retired men have made MANY trips to the Gulf Coast to repair homes. Because we sing a capella and our women don’t serve communion, we’re considered “legalistic.”
The idea of trying not to “offend” people is foreign not only to Paul but to Jesus as well. Jesus did not walk around coddling everyone He came into contact with. He was not worried about how he would be received by the masses and therefore doing all He could to be as least offensive as possible. His demands for people were straightforward and firm, and if you didn’t like it, then you weren’t “worthy of the kingdom” and he left you standing there in your sandals. He was not unloving, but steadfast in His convictions of what kingdom life required.
That’s what I wish more church leaders would absorb from Jesus. Sell out to God and His will for His church, then fearlessly stand firm in those convictions, taking as many as will go, but not getting sidetracked or derailed by those who refuse to go. There will still be the weak and strong in the mix of “goers”, and love will be the binding force between those folks, but the hard hearted and stubborn will be left behind. Hey wait! I just came up with an idea for a series of books I might write! Left Behind…… Man that sounds like it will sell.
Excellent Mike, thanks so much.
I often wonder whether a misunderstanding about “agape love” causes us to miss something important in our search for unity. A quick search in a concordance debunks all the talk about agape being some sort of divine love that’s somehow higher than emotion. Agape is simply “love”, and it is used with all the breadth of meaning of our English word. As you look at the way the word is used in the NT, three qualities emerge: value, longing, and affection. If we valued, if we longed for relationship with, if we cultivated a deep affection for each other the way that God values, longs for, and has affection for us, our discussions about what we ought or ought not to do might not get any easier, but they would certainly take on a different tone than what we often encounter. Seems like if God was willing to crucify His Son out of love for us, the least we can do is crucify some of our preferences and opinions out of love for each other.
Brad,
I’m just not sure how to take your comment. Here’s what I will say. The people Jesus seemed to “coddle” (to use your term) were the ones who humbled themselves and saw/confessed their need for grace and mercy. The people Jesus seemed to scold were the religious leaders who saw their self-importance at a high level, and saw little to no role for grace and mercy.
So, I guess I’d like to say that what I wish to see is church leaders standing firm for humbling ourselves and being servants, doing good to our fellow man for the sake of Jesus and the Kingdom.
Lisa-
I do come from a background many would consider “very conservative” and I dislike “conservative” and “liberal” tags, although they are somewhat informative. I am convinced that we should somehow be willing and able to accept each other and worship and serve with each other in relative peace, even though we have differences. I have worked with a very small congregation which is struggling with what I would term legalism, and they find me extremely “liberal”. When I am there, I worship in ways they find comfortable, not necessarily the ways I would prefer. There are things I treasure which they find untenable. They do not have access to another Cof C down the road to accept them if they are uncomfortable or can’t get along, so they deal with differences as best they can. It seems that we somehow have not learned, in all of our education and study, that compassion is central to Christianity, and we owe everything to Christ. If I truly know what grace is, I should be willing to tolerate and accept those who are different in their preferences, both those who are more “liberal” and those who are more “conservative” than myself. The caveat is that (I think) those of us who have received more grace are called to be more conciliatory and more graceful, even when some around us are intolerant, displeased, and even hostile. Our human nature wants our own way, our own preferences, our own comforts, but…
It was not the human nature in Jesus which forgave those who were in the very act of crucifying him, it was the Saviour, the one we follow.
I really like the question from Hub:
“I would still love to hear some wisdom on how it is okay for Paul to contradict the Council of Jerusalem. ”
Anyone have anything to say about that?
The “weaker brother” concept was NEVER meant to be invoked upon others. It was never meant to be a tool to get what you want out of others out of manipulation and strangulation of God’s Word until it has people doing what you want them to do. It is not a playing card that trumps all else. It is a standard that the stronger brother recognizes and humbly accepts rather than being demanded by the “weaker brother.” I cannot imagine Paul thought people would run around calling themselves “weaker” in an attempt to get what they want. It seems to me he was talking more to the stronger brothers to show restraint and patience with the weaker ones.
In response to hub’s question - Ben Witherington’s commentary on 1&2 Corinthians cites J.C. Hurd - The Origin of 1 Corinthians, 1965, pp.115-149 as a resource on the view that Paul had been trying to impose the ruling of Acts 15 on the Corinthians. B.W. says, “I would not rule this out, but more likely 1 Cornithians 8-10 shows how he would apply such a decree in a situation like Corinth.” - p.186
J. Jervell says that the restrictions placed on the Gentiles in Acts 15 were the same restrictions Moses placed upon the foreigners living among them under the law in Leviticus 17-18 (Luke & the People of God, 144):
Restriction on sexual immorality - Lev 18
Restriction on idolatry - Lev 20:2
Restriction on eating meat with blood in it - Lev 17:10
Strangled animals - ????
Not sure if that helps but it might be one piece of the puzzle in figuring out why Paul would apply it in the way he did in a Jew/Gentile audience in Corinth. It seems to me that Paul was saying that they weren’t even getting the basics yet - they weren’t doing any of this through love. The Council of Jerusalem was trying to bridge a gap between parties with a common sense solution that had basis in the Law. These Corinthian Christians hadn’t even gotten the basics down yet.
I too have heard this weaker/stronger strawman argument for a long time (with regard to the “usual” CoC issues) and been told that I, as a “progressive,” need to curtail my behavior for the sake of the “conservative” brother, lest I cause my brother (who has professed Christ for 60 years) fall away from the faith. And it was always said in a threatening way … “YOU wouldn’t want your insistence on “change” to cause your brother to SIN, WOULD YOU?!!!”
No longer in CoC, and for the past two years, have not heard a single time the strong brother/weak brother junk.
Here’s what I think now — isn’t it pretty audacious to think that my action regarding what I eat, or how I sing, or what I wear, trumps the work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life? Are we saying that because I do “X”, a brother could fall away from the faith? Are my actions really more powerful than God’s actions? Hard to imagine that it is. Instead, look to the parable of the soils. Maybe the one who “falls away” is the soil who received the word gladly but was choked out. Was that person really ever sanctified at all?
I think at the root of how Paul relates to the Apostolic Counsel rests in this simple phrase:
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” ”
“It seemed good” strongly implies, to me at least, that this was an act of discernment–a judgment for a particular situation–that might be right, might be wrong, but, at the very least, isn’t a Law or rule and should be continually revisited. All ethical and doctrinal decisions are relative to the context of God breaking into the world in a new way.
I wish more churches would learn to speak in the humble voice of “It seemed good to us.”
Richard and Matt,
Thanks for the input. I am still not sold on this completely and am trying to work it over in my head. Why would it seem good to the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem for Gentiles to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and then in Corinth, He changes His opinion? Is this an area where Paul believes the two prime pillars of the “yoke” of Jesus, loving God and loving others, simply trumps a lesser command?
Brian,
If Jesus commissioned us and expects us to disciple others, why would we think that we are unable to “undisciple” them? Or to take others to a vulnerable place? I think that God takes us very seriously and that He has chosen to work through humans to bring the reign of Christ more fully in this world. (And yes, this is through the Spirit) We should take ourselves seriously, then, and listen to Jesus’ words from Mark 9:42 “And if anyone causes one of these little ones (vulnerable disciples) who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”
For years, we have lived under a sort of “tyranny of the weak,” in which all issues were reduced to whatever seemed safest, least controversial, most conservative.
This tyranny of the weak is antithetical to the way Jesus and Paul behaved themselves–going around teaching folks, correcting folks, challenging long-held assumptions.
Hub,
What is “good” is always contextual and relative. Thus, God’s mission–His Incarnation–is always in flux. Thus the need for wisdom and discernment.
Richard,
You said:
““It seemed good” strongly implies, to me at least, that this was an act of discernment–a judgment for a particular situation–that might be right, might be wrong, but, at the very least, isn’t a Law or rule and should be continually revisited.”
I would agree, generally: if something seems good to me, it might be good, or it might not. It’s just my perception.
But if something “seems good” to the Holy Spirit, as it did in this passage, isn’t that a little more signifcant? Isn’t His discernment more relevant than ours?
Our preacher did a sermon on this not too long ago, and I really appreciated his take on those who use this scripture to stay comfortable. He said that we should not be concerned with the “phantom brother” who might possibly be offended by something that we do. In other words, when one of those who are uncomfortable with something you are doing says, “But WHAT IF someone saw you drinking that beer, and he was an addict, and that caused him to doubt his Christianity.” Playing to the “phantom brother” card keeps us bound to a set of laws God didn’t really give us. We are allowing men to “help God out” with their own sets of rules and regulations to keep us from stumbling.
“love trumps knowledge” still brilliant!
1. Love trumps knowledge–great synopsis.
2. There is a time when it is wrong to exercise my rights.
3. Is it possible for someone else’s actions to violate my conscience? I doubt it. Unless I personally do what violates my conscience, I have not sinned. If I am not at risk of committing the allegedly sinful action myself, I don’t think the “weaker brother” argument applies.
To say that ’seemed’ is equivalent to certainty in Acts 16 makes an unsupported assumption: that the Spirit made known a clear revelation of God’s will on the matter. This scripture doesn’t say that. If it did, why was a word meaning ’seemed’ used in the letter from the Council to the churches?
I don’t believe we can assume that the Spirit always worked in a miraculous way in Century One. It’s possible that He worked in subtler ways then, just as He does now … so that the answers desired are not always neatly delivered in gift-wrapped packages.
I’d feel more confident in the soundness of the Council’s decision if I could read that they prayed and fasted about the question before legislating the answer. I’d feel more confident if the word “seemed” wasn’t there.
Just because scripture records the decision doesn’t necessarily mean that God endorsed it.
Keith,
They were appealing to scripture with that plan. They were just pointing out what God endorsed in the Old Testament. See my above post.
Maybe I am missing something here.
I can understand how “seems” inherently indicates a lack of certainty, but Acts 15.28 says it “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
If something seems good to the Holy Spirit, then it is good. The Holy Spirit doesn’t make mistakes.
It is true that earlier in v. 25, it also says “seemed good to us” without including the Holy Spirit, but that decision was only in regards to sending men along with Paul and Barnabas. When giving the decision regarding the “essentials”, it seems (ha!) clear that they were doing so under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Matt and Luke (why do I feel like I’m addressing gospel writers?), I’m not sure Paul agreed that what was good for the goose in the Old Testament was good for the gander in the New. I’m not convinced that the Spirit agreed with that, either.
We don’t know how the apostolic gathering came to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit seemed to approve of their decision. The Spirit doesn’t make mistakes, but people do - even people within whom the Spirit dwells. (Think King Saul.)
All I know is that the legislation caused difficulties later and that Paul (can we assume he is also speaking by the Spirit? I hope so!) hardly ever came out strongly in favor of legislation, especially this one.
Keith, I appreciate your thoughts. I just wanted to mention that Paul did in fact speak in favor of this legislation in Acts 16:4 - “as they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey…”
I posted on this topic on my blog the other day, but every time I try to mention it in these comments, it doesn’t appear.
I’m a little confused . . . each of us is responsible for our own actions. This sounds like stuff I heard as a teenager, i.e., the way I dress “causes” men to sin. That’s ridiculous. Someone can be covered from head to toe (like a muslim) and another person still think unclean things. There doesn’t even have to be a visual image. When someone has a weakness, it’s their responsibility to stay away from it. Likewise, if I’m on a diet, does the person going out to eat with me have to order a salad or skip dessert?? I think I understand the logic of your comments, but we still have to remember that we are responsible for ourselves.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Council of Jerusalem was in the late 40s AD, whereas the first (extant) letter to the Corinthians was written in about 55. Probably the great purpose of the Council of Jerusalem was to not make things too hard on the incoming Gentiles from a legal standpoint while not making it too difficult for the incoming Jews to accept these (from a Jewish standpoint) unclean Gentiles as brothers. I don’t think there’s any contradiction there at all. I think changing church dynamics and the gradual maturation of the core made it much more feasible to lift the ban on eating meat sacrificed to idols as people began to realize the sheer nothingness to which the meat had been devoted.
I am the weaker brother. I am no phantom. I am a sex addict. Irregardless of that fact, I would love to listen to someone trying to tell me that the predominant fashions in young women’s clothing these days (shirts that do not come down to the waist; low-rise hip hugger jeans) are appropriate dress at any time for a woman of God–I seem to recall Paul telling Timothy that women should dress modestly. If someone is trying to enforce a dress code at the assembly that requires men to wear a suit and tie and women to wear a dress or skirt and are using the ‘weaker brother’ argument, by all means demolish his arguments. But when I can see the unmentionables when she sits down (or even when she stands up) or when her clothes have no other apparent purposes than 1) to cover her naughty bits and 2) to draw my eyes to those places, it can surely not be something that any Christian woman ought wear.