All theological error originates from the evil one. He is more cunningly skillful than we could ever know at leading people astray through academic and highly nuanced theological error. As is true with every other danger that we face, when we come to study theological error we must remember the words of the Apostle Paul: “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”

There is a profoundly important section titled, “On the Preaching of the Word,” in The Directory for the Public Worship of God, in which we find a very short and very wise statement about the minister’s responsibility to refute false teaching in the church. What is most captivating about the brief statement found therein is that it instructs concerning, first, the dangers of talking about false teaching, and, second, the necessity of refuting false teaching in the church.
As the Divines unfolded their beliefs about how ministers should approach the aspect of refuting theological error in their preaching, they wrote:
In confutation of false doctrines, he [i.e. the minister] is neither to raise an old heresy from the grave, nor to mention a blasphemous opinion unnecessarily: but, if the people be in danger of an error, he is to confute it soundly, and endeavor to satisfy their judgments and consciences against all objections.
The rationale for this statement is dependent on understanding the nature of false teaching itself. In short, ideas can and often do have massive spiritual consequences. J. Gresham Machen made the important statement about the implications of false teachings and ideologies when he wrote:
False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel…What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassioned debate.1
Since beliefs inevitably have consequences on our lives and actions, the Divines first warn against our “raising an old heresy from the grave, nor to mention a blasphemous opinion unnecessarily.” They do not say this to be necessarily or fearfully censorious, or to bury their heads in the sand rather than deal with difficult theological matters. Rather, they raise this warning because of the nature of false teaching.
When I was a young Christian, a friend taught me that “whenever false teaching is taught in a nuanced fashion there is always the danger that some who hear it will be drawn into it.” He went on to explain that this is true within the realm of relationships, as well. Whenever we start to enter into debate with those with whom we disagree we are in danger of becoming more like them–as well as becoming more susceptible to being influenced by their beliefs. It is not guaranteed that this will happen, but it is certainly a very real and ever present danger. Tragically, years after sharing this thought with me, my friend went on to embrace a sinful lifestyle due in part to the public discussions about, and approval of, that particular sin. Additionally, I have watched–with great heaviness of heart–as a minister of the Gospel walked away from Protestantism in the midst of engaging, on church court levels, with men who were being tried for holding to aberrant theological views on the sacraments and soteriology. Whether engagement with sacramentalist views were the cause of his departing from the truth or not, I cannot help but wonder what impact interacting with aberrant teaching had on this particular individual.
This danger must be highlighted within the realm of pastoral ministry in the church. There are some who thrive on debating theological issues. This can be harmful to the members of a church because some members already have misguided beliefs, and some have a very small knowledge of doctrine. In the case of the first group, introducing old heresies can encourage more confusion. I have, time and again, seen individuals start to dabble with heresy because they already had misguided beliefs based on their erroneous knowledge of Scripture. In the case of the latter group, introducing theological error–even in the name of “discernment”–can end in filling the minds of God’s people with falsehood when they ought to be filling their minds with the truth. Far better to teach them the nuances of the truth of Scripture so that they will be able to discern falsehood when confronted with it. You don’t study a counterfeit dollar bill to spot a counterfeit; you study the real dollar currency so that you will be better suited to spot the counterfeit.
Read More

If creating a meal for someone with multiple allergies is not an option, create a gathering that doesn’t include a meal. Have a game night and instead of a meal provide some store-bought safe snacks. Things like chips, salsa, and popcorn are usually great for most people with allergies and food disorders. By creating an activity to focus on, people won’t be focused on their food. This will help the guests feel more comfortable and less anxious at your event. 

As the holiday season approaches, many of us will share food with friends and family.  We will have family over for holiday meals.  We will share snacks at church events, parties, and homeschool groups. Everywhere we look we will encounter food. For many of us, food is the most delightful and joyous part of gatherings. What would December be without Christmas cookies and hot chocolate? Our culture, among others, revolves around food and eating together. We look forward to meals together at the table, find enjoyment in the anticipation of what food we will eat, and create traditions that are all centered around food. Practicing hospitality through meals and celebratory food is something observable in the scriptures. It’s not an exaggeration to say that food is an essential part of human life. We are so thankful to be a part of a church that shows hospitality with consideration for those who have food allergies and disorders. But I know that many churches do not show the same consideration.
What about those people for whom food is not a celebratory moment but instead can cause feelings of fear, self-consciousness, and exclusion?  How do we handle gatherings for individuals who have different food needs?  Partaking in meals together is one form of hospitality that God has shown us we are to partake in together, and yet there is sin in the world that even distorts the good. But what happens when we encounter individuals who have food allergies, sensitivity, neurodivergence, food disorders, and more?
What Does the Bible Say About Eating Together?
The best place to start when asking questions about anything is to open God’s Word. Today we are going to see what the scriptures say about eating together.

Genesis 18:6. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. 3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,[a] do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”

One of the first instances we see of food and hospitality being offered is in Genesis. Here, Abraham is approached by strangers. His first reaction is to invite them in, give them the best food he can offer, and have a feast. Providing food for others has been ingrained in us as humans. It has been around since the beginning of time.

Matthew 14:19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people.

In Matthew, we are shown the example of Jesus feeding people after he spoke. These people refused to go home, and Jesus knowing they would need food, provided that for them. The people all sat on the grass together and feasted. They gave thanks and were appreciative of the food that was provided for them. Eating together must be important since it is seen many times throughout the New Testament. (John 21:9-14, Acts 2:42, Luke 9:16)
The last scripture we are going to look at is Romans 14:1-4.

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Read More
Related Posts:

Omitting verifiable facts from American history silently, but powerfully abets, contributes to, and supports calls for reparations. For that reason, and given the breadth of reparation proposals, they become nothing more than entitlements based on skin color alone.
Reparations to descendants of slaves is a complex issue and one burdened with pros and cons. Indeed, since slavery ended in 1865, many more cons than pros exist on the reparations ledger. Moreover, a Pew Research Center report finds that three-quarters or more of white adults oppose reparations, as do a majority of Latinos and Asian Americans. Nine Black leaders also oppose reparation payments. Nevertheless, approximately a dozen cities and several states have initiated reparation programs renewing hopes for a national policy of reparations for slavery.
The most irrational reparations plan (so far) is California’s. The California reparations panel just approved a payment of up to $1.2 million per black resident—without requiring proof showing slave ancestors. This is irrationality to the point of madness. California joined the union as a free state in 1850. California’s blacks were not slaves, and Asians, Jews, and Hispanics also experienced fierce discrimination.
California’s not the only “free” state supporting reparations. Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Rabb proposed statewide reparations involving multiple compensation tiers, with the greatest awards going to residents who can prove they descended from generations of black Pennsylvanians. The plan seemingly does not distinguish between actual slave descendants and descendants of free blacks or black slaveowners.
That last point—another con for reparations—reminds us that not all blacks were slaves. Basically, when the subject of reparations arises, it views the issue solely (and falsely) through a racial prism; i.e., blacks were slaves, and only whites were slave owners.
In fact, blacks practiced slave ownership, trading, and bounty hunting for escaped slaves. Thousands of blacks owned slaves, with some becoming very wealthy. Five Native American tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) also owned black slaves. These facts are verified and addressed by several black historians and scholars, e.g., John Hope Franklin, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Larry Koger, Glenn Loury, and Carter G. Woodson.
Read More