Alright mom, here we go. Today we’re tackling the “don’t cause your brother to stumble” passages that always come up in the modesty debate. I’ll be honest. This one is tough and complicated. If you’re just joining us in this discussion, be sure to check out Part 1 and Part 2 before digging into this section with us. Find Part 4 here.
First, let’s look at the passages that address this concept:
Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall. -1 Cor 8:13
It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall. -Romans 14:21
If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! -Matthew 18:6-7 {this teaching is also recounted in Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:1}
Contextually, the verse from 1 Corinthians is about eating meat in the temple left over from pagan sacrifice. While Christians were free to do so, some felt it was inappropriate and if they were to indulge would negatively affect their conscience. So Paul advocated for radical choices in this area despite complete freedom in order to support his brothers & sisters in Christ. This commentary explained it exceptionally well.
The Romans verse addressed eating meat that was unclean (and traditionally off-limits), along with alcohol as it was typically associated with pagan worship ceremonies. The concept it similar to the one explained in 1 Corinthians.
The Matthew (and Mark and Luke) passage comes directly from Jesus’ teachings.
*Note: The original text of these verses doesn’t use the term “cause” as we typically use it. The translation is difficult but it’s more akin to “a stumbling block is present” than a “cause/effect” situation.
In all honesty, this is a hard concept to comprehend – and for me as a firmly “body positive” mama – it’s hard to stomach. There’s a lot of cultural context involved from both biblical times when the verses were written, and today’s world when we’re trying to navigate their application.
Today, we’re in a Catch-22 because the way we have historically raised our sons (feeding into the overly-sexual/accidental body-shaming ideology of yore) affects how we currently respond with and raise up our daughters. But just because I don’t like the takeaway (practicing limits with fashion) doesn’t mean I should reject it or find a dozen perspectives that support my position. My desire is to honor God and I do feel like He’s indicated there are limits and we have a responsibility to our fellow believers.
But also, it’s important to note that we’ve pulled out this concept and arbitrarily applied it to “easy” issues (like sexual temptation and alcoholism), failing to acknowledge that it’s not limited to those issues. Should we eschew expensive jewelry or large houses or certain vehicles because they may cause our neighbor to covet them? Should we ban church potlucks or pizza parties because there may be some who struggle with gluttony? I mean, the verses in 1 Corinthians and Romans are specifically about food, after all.
This is where it starts to feel uncomfortable, limiting, and abrasive. It’s easy to shrug that off as ludicrous – but is it really? Or is God calling us to inconvenience? I’m not arguing that pizza parties should be banned or that designer purses are evil. What I AM suggesting is that things aren’t as cut-and-dried as we want them to be, and that our own inclination to elevate sexuality to the highest-level sin affects how we interpret and apply passages like the ones above. We need to recognize the tension and sit in the discomfort and realize that following God doesn’t always fit into neat little boxes.
It would be irresponsible to dissect the previous passages without ALSO including the following passages, one of which comes directly on the heels of the above:
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. -Matthew 5:28
And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell –Mark 9:47
First, it’s important to clarify that “lust” is not simple sexual attraction or normal desire. Those things are not sinful. “Lust” is an intentional lingering; intentionally entertaining those feelings. Second, nothing negates responsibility for choices. Consider the stories of Bathesheba, Tamar, and Dinah. All stories have pre-sexual “immodest” behavior that can make the women “accountable” according to current standards, but in the scriptures – NONE of them are. Modesty is not an either/or; it’s a both/and scenario. Two things can be true: as individuals we have a responsibility to help other people maintain a Godly life, but any failures are 100% the fault of the individual. Let’s be clear: There is no victim-blaming here.
Well, if you’ve hung in with me this long, thank you. This portion is, for me, the most challenging piece of the whole “modesty” issue to dissect. But diving in and learning more (as opposed to just ignoring it and deciding I don’t like the concept) has honestly helped me formulate a healthier, more informed view of modesty that I feel is both God-honoring and body-positive. In our final installment I’ll summarize my thoughts along with how my own perspective has both shifted AND stayed the same. I hope you join me and weigh in!
What we got right: We can influence others’ perceptions and should be aware of how our actions and dress may affect others.
What we got wrong: The traditional teaching doesn’t have us viewing each other as true brothers and sisters in Christ. Instead, we view each other as antagonists (“cause” and “effect”). The idea that that we are responsible for the sins, actions, and choices of others is incorrect. Furthermore, we have used the concept of “not causing your brother to stumble” to primarily apply to sexual temptation, which it doesn’t. It’s a lot more complicated than that.
What are your thoughts on these passages?
