The Sunday School class I help teach is working through 1 Corinthians. A few weeks ago I was preparing to teach chapter 10. If you don't recall/know, the latter half of chapter 10 picks up Paul's discussion of eating meat sacrificed to idols which he began in chapter 8.

Meat sacrificed to idols is not an issue we can readily relate to. But what struck me about Paul's discussion about this issue in chapters 8 and 10 is how exceedingly difficult it is to map the interface of church and culture. As we watch Paul try to guide this new church as she interfaces with the pagan Corinthian culture we see Paul spin out a dizzying array of situations and how to deal with each. Interfacing with culture, if these texts are any indication, is very difficult.

Here's the issue before Paul: Is it permissible to eat meat if it had been used/sacrificed in a pagan ritual?

I think both the Corinthians and the modern reader want Paul to simply say Yes or No. That would be very easy to both understand and to implement. But such hard and fast rules would attenuate the the ability of the Corinthians to "be all things to all people."

So, rather than getting a Yes/No response from Paul, we see a different refrain: Yes, but...

"Yes, but..." is much more flexible, but it is also complex and requires discernment. Is it permissible to eat meat if it had been used/sacrificed in a pagan ritual? Yes, Paul answers, but...

For example, if you read the chapters, Paul says the following:

Question:
Is it permissible to eat/buy meat if it had been used/sacrificed in a pagan ritual?

General Answer:
Yes, an idol is nothing.

But...
No, if it causes a believer to stumble.
Yes, you can buy this meat in the marketplace.
No, you cannot eat it as a part of a pagan ritual.
Yes, you can eat is as a guest, but, if a weaker brother is present, you should refrain.

In short, Paul is trying to guide the Corinthian church as she seeks to interface with and minister to the larger Corinthian culture. Paul could help the Corinthians by giving them some very simple rules to follow. He could turn them into a Yes or No Church, a church who reasons about issues in black and white categories. But Paul doesn't do this. He is trying to turn them into a Yes, but... Church. Which means a discerning church. But a Yes, but... Church is so much more difficult to manage. Discernment is hard and even error prone. Why doesn't Paul have them take the easy way out?

I think because only a Yes, but... Church can be responsive to the call of God in the world. Situational ethics are sticky business. But if you get out in the world situations are what you'll have to deal with. Rules do not guide. Only wisdom can help.

This is one reason I don't like Christians going on and on about the Ten Commandments. It's not that I have anything against the Ten Commandments. I just don't find them very helpful past a certain superficial point (e.g., I agree not to kill anyone or steal anything.). But the concern is that if we don't push the Ten Commandments into the larger American culture (because, presumably, non-Christians simply LOVE to kill and steal) that ethics will become relative and contextual.

My feeling? That is precisely the ethic we need.

"Yes, but..."