Eat whatever is sold in the marketplace, without raising questions of conscience. But if someone with a weak conscience comes along, we should make accommodations. Up to what point?
The standard is: what furthers the Kingdom of God, and what hinders it? Jesus got criticized for much of what he did, and did not offer any apology. He never went out of his way to provoke, but neither did he go out of his way to avoid provoking. He just did his thing, and people reacted according to what was in their own hearts.
When Jesus got called out for taking grain from stalks on the Sabbath, he did not apologize. Did he ever do it again? We're not told. Maybe he didn't, or maybe he was careful not to do it in the presence of those with weak consciences. I'd like to think he had always been careful to keep his exercise of freedom discreet, and luck was against him that one time. I would consider that making reasonable accommodations. There's no way of knowing when people who would take offense might pop up. If you know there's one standing right next to you, don't eat that meat. If there's likely one nearby, don't eat that meat. It's not worth it.
On the other hand, if it's something more important than food or drink - such as healing the sick or elucidating the gospel, the standard of what is reasonable shifts. The more there is at stake, the less you should accommodate the peoples' feelings. It's not worth it.
There are two sides to every scale. Feelings matter, but not more than anything else.
The standard is: what furthers the Kingdom of God, and what hinders it? Jesus got criticized for much of what he did, and did not offer any apology. He never went out of his way to provoke, but neither did he go out of his way to avoid provoking. He just did his thing, and people reacted according to what was in their own hearts.
When Jesus got called out for taking grain from stalks on the Sabbath, he did not apologize. Did he ever do it again? We're not told. Maybe he didn't, or maybe he was careful not to do it in the presence of those with weak consciences. I'd like to think he had always been careful to keep his exercise of freedom discreet, and luck was against him that one time. I would consider that making reasonable accommodations. There's no way of knowing when people who would take offense might pop up. If you know there's one standing right next to you, don't eat that meat. If there's likely one nearby, don't eat that meat. It's not worth it.
On the other hand, if it's something more important than food or drink - such as healing the sick or elucidating the gospel, the standard of what is reasonable shifts. The more there is at stake, the less you should accommodate the peoples' feelings. It's not worth it.
There are two sides to every scale. Feelings matter, but not more than anything else.
