In THE GRACE AWAKENING, Charles Swindoll told of a missionary family who literally were forced off the mission field over peanut butter. They were sent to a location where peanut butter was not available, so they asked friends back in the States to occasionally send them some. The problem was that the other missionaries considered it a mark of spirituality NOT to have peanut butter. The newer missionary family considered this a matter of differing opinions, so they continued to receive and enjoy their peanut butter. But the pressure from the other missionaries to conform became so intense, the newer family finally gave up and left the mission field.
How could something like this — that probably seems petty and foolish to us — have happened? I imagine it developed something like this: A missionary family who greatly enjoyed peanut butter went to this particular mission field. They faced the choice of doing without it or asking friends or relatives in the States to send it to them. As they considered their options before the Lord, they came to the conclusion that doing without peanut butter was a small sacrifice to make. Though, like the Apostle Paul, they had a “right” to peanut butter, they chose not to use that right (see 1 Cor. 9:1–12). If my theory of this issue’s origin is correct, I personally find their thinking quite acceptable, perhaps even applaudable, in that circumstance. That’s Paul’s whole point in Romans 14. If they decided to give up peanut butter as to the Lord who am I to belittle or ridicule them? Paul said the man whose faith allows him to eat peanut butter must not look down on him who does not (Romans 14:3).
So what went wrong? My guess is that one family elevated the particular leading of God for them to the level of a spiritual principle, which they then applied to everyone: “If God has ‘led’ us to give up peanut butter on the mission field, surely that is His will for everyone else.”