St. Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians tells them that one can't sit at the table of demons and also at Christ's Table--contrasting the Eucharist where we partake of Christ's body and blood, with the food offered to idols. In that same place he says:
"'All things are lawful,' but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For 'the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.' 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. 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--I do not mean your conscience, but for theirs. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
So, whether you eat or dink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." - 1 Corinthians 10:23-33
Paul isn't contradicting himself, because he had just immediately before this called eating and drinking at the table of idols is partaking in the cup and table of demons; and saying "flee from idolatry".
Paul began this conversation about food offered to idols back in chapter 8 of this epistle, saying it this way,
"Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that 'all of us possess knowledge.' This 'knowledge' puffs up, but loves builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
Therefore, as to the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one.' For although there may be s-called 'gods' in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'--yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." - 1 Corinthians 8:1-13
The weight of responsibility, here, is not about asserting ourselves as "moral" people; but in a sense the opposite of that: the weight of responsibility, moral responsibility, is in regard to our neighbors. If we go to the market and buy food, don't raise a stink about where it came from just in case it was food dedicated to a pagan god, just buy your food go home and eat dinner; if you are at someone's house, don't raise a stink about where the food came from. Be a good guest, be thankful for the food, honor God in that way. Now, if someone makes a big show about how this food was offered to an idol and this meal is an act of worship or devotion or celebration to some god--well then politely decline the food. Not for your sake, but for theirs. It's not about our morality, it's about their conscience.
I go into a Thai restaurant and see images of the Buddha, do you eat? Do any of us make a fuss over it? I certainly hope not. We go, enjoy our meal, are thankful for the food, probably saying grace before the meal. And, as Christians, ought to treat the wait staff respectfully, and (at least here in the US) offer a good tip because the worker deserves their wages. We probably do this right after church, as well.
Now what if there were, instead, images of Zeus, Poseidon, Ra, or Odin? What if it was a restaurant run by someone who worships the ancient Greek pantheon (as the pagans in Corinth would have), would we refuse to eat there then? Is our cultural familiarity with East Asian restaurants with Buddhist (as just one example) imagery make one technically less idolatrous than the other? That'd be silly, right? We wouldn't, or shouldn't raise a stink about it, make a fuss, but rather eat our food, offer thanks for the food in a Christian manner, be polite and respectful guests and patrons of the establishment.
So now we are dealing with modern Satanist imagery, a satanic idol rather than, say, an image of the Buddha, or an image of Zeus. But what did the Apostle say in 1 Corinthians 10, the table/cup of idols is the table/cup of demons. Paul doesn't make a distinction. Zeus doesn't exist, so who or what is honored by the idolatry of those who offer food sacrificed to Zeus? Well for Paul it seems obvious, it's the devil. The devil is a liar, a deceiver, holding the world blind and captive through deceit and waging a war against all creation through death.
So, from a purely pragmatic, purely biblical perspective, what's the difference? The only difference is that with one we take offense and the other we don't; with one we raise a fuss but the other we don't. We assert ourselves with one, but with the other we don't.
Now, I'm not saying anyone has to go eat in a Satanist-run restaurant (keeping the restaurant analogy going I suppose), but no one has to go eat at Buddhist-run restaurant either. Eat what you want, that's the freedom Paul talks about throughout his letters. The point I'm raising here is that Paul seems to suggest that our engagement with the broader culture should be thoughtful rather than reactionary.
It's probably a given that, in the ancient Greco-Roman world Christians were confronted with pagan imagery literally everywhere. There was no such thing as the separation of church (temple?) and state. The whole of society was suffused with the icons, ornaments, language, and smells and bells of Paganism, it was inescapable and unavoidable. And what does Paul tell Christians to do? Go retreat into a cave, avoid society to remain "pure"? No, he says go out and love people, be a faithful witness of Jesus, live humbly, be respectful, be kind, act with gentleness. Be a good neighbor, putting the needs of others above our own. Don't assert ourselves, but build up others with love; defend the conscience of the weak by not asserting our freedom when that would be a problem. Live peaceably, he says in Romans 12, with all insofar as it is up to us.
If there is a idol in the front of a state building, and you need to go in and do some business, then pay the idol no mind, go in and do your business. Be respectful, show kindness, act as a Christian ought. If for someone reason someone told you to go and bow before that idol and offer sacrifice or prayer--then obviously don't. And remain firm in your rejection of all idolatry--but don't make a fuss because you are present in the world, and the world is the world. Remember that we are all strangers and pilgrims here (1 Peter 2:11).
The lusts of the flesh aren't only in the obvious things; but (and often far more dangerously) in the subtle things. The devil, as you recall, likes to appear as "an angel of light". It's not the beastly idols of a diabolical looking statue created by modern Satanists that I would be concerned with; it's the "angel of light" that we should be far more concerned about. The subtle temptations, where the devil would pervert our faith and religion within us toward destructive ends, that we would conflate our passions with piety.
To that end, I'd like to offer this illustration. In the 2003 movie Luther there is an exchange between Cardinal Cajetan and Aleander, Cajetan has recommended Aleander to the Pope to become a cardinal. In the exchange Cajetan asks Aleander what it is that he wants most, to which Aleander responds, "To serve God, to serve Him with all my heart" to which Cajetan responds, "And that is how you will be tempted". I don't get into the complexities of the history of Cajetan or how he's portrayed in the film here--the point is instead the recognition that the desire to do good can itself become temptation and produce sin. This is actually very close to the heart of certain aspects of Lutheran theology about Original Sin and the whole problem of "Good Works" in relation to God, but I digress.
For a more familiar pop culture illustration, while it is rather portrayed hammily, is Anikin Skywalker's fall from grace in the Star Wars prequels, and how he became Darth Vader. Anikin didn't begin his walk toward the dark side with bad intentions, but with good. He was fiercely zealous in his devotion to things like justice and love--but those things were twisted, misshapen, his mind was poisoned by lies from Palpatine, his fears, his rage. He didn't start out committing slaughter, that came much later--the dark within him, that was the problem. Lofty ideals, good intentions, our own sense of right and wrong can themselves be tools of darkness. And that's something we have to be very careful about. The devil doesn't show up in a dark hood as "The Emperor", as Darth Sidious, but as calm, moral, upstanding, Sheev Palpatine. And that's the actual danger. And appearing as an angel of light, tempt, whisper, lie, seduce. Because there is a darkness in each of us, sin. And we are inclined toward it from the deepest recesses of our heart and bones.
-CryptoLutheran
