Conflict in the Community- Rom 14
Last week’s gospel reading was about Jesus sharing wisdom regarding when a fellow Christian sins against you. And our gospel reading for today deals with how often we should forgive a member of the church who sins against us. … In our Romans reading today, Paul is dealing with Christians who disagree about two issues- diet, and the recognition of religious days.
Many of Paul’s letters are written in response to conflict in churches. Even the Apostles themselves had conflict with each other. The Book of Acts records Paul’s conflict with Peter about how Gentiles should become a part of the church. Acts also records a conflict between Paul and Barnabus over whether to include Mark in their mission, since Paul felt he abandoned them on an earlier journey. … We also see in the Gospels where the Apostles argue amongst each other about which of them is greater. … So, conflict was a part of the life of the Early Church, even in the lives of the Apostles.
There is a strange comfort in knowing that we aren’t so different from those early Christians. We can sometimes idealize them in a way that leaves us thinking they never had conflict. As if their lives were lived with confidence that they always knew what to do, and they always lived in perfect harmony with each other. … Strangely, I find comfort knowing that they sometimes struggled to know God’s will and sometimes disagreed with each other.
We can sometimes feel like we are failing if we are dealing with conflict. … I think we fail when we lose love for one another. When I look at the Early Church, I see them loving each other enough to work through their conflicts together. They knew they were in the same family. They were struggling to know the best way to follow Christ, and they had differing ideas about how to do that. They came together to pray through how to include the Gentiles. They saw each other as family. They loved each other enough to be together and pray and think through it.
Paul and Barnabus seemed to have had a falling out over Mark, but that separation didn’t last forever- they came together again. Peter and Paul had a disagreement, but in Peter’s second letter he describes Paul as, “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet 3:15), and tradition tells us that they were martyred together in Rome under Emperor Nero.
We are called to love. And love doesn’t mean we let go of truth. It means we listen to each other with care, trusting that maybe God will say something through that other person that I need to hear. It means thinking in the most gracious way I can about the person I’m disagreeing with. It means trusting that their motives are good, and giving them the benefit of the doubt. … But, love doesn’t mean never sharing what I believe to be true. It does mean speaking that truth in a way that is in alignment with my love for the other person. …
In last week’s Gospel reading we saw that Jesus believed that unrepentant sin towards another member of the community could lead to someone losing that community. So, we aren’t talking about everyone just blindly accepting everything everyone does or believes and calling that love- as if the community has no standards. In a family, love includes correction. Ultimately, the faithful beliefs and actions of the community are there for the health of the whole community, including for the one who sinned against that community. So, we aren’t talking about a kind of love that just avoids conflict. We are talking about a kind of love that is willing to work through the conflict.
We also aren’t talking about some sort of homogeneous way of thinking and believing. Theologians can disagree vigorously, and still see each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Not everything is a “deal breaker” regarding the Christian community. In our reading from Romans, Paul is dealing with some of these gray areas that he seems to think aren’t “deal breakers” for the community. There is an often quoted phrase from the 17th century that is used regarding church disagreements that goes,
Many of Paul’s letters are written in response to conflict in churches. Even the Apostles themselves had conflict with each other. The Book of Acts records Paul’s conflict with Peter about how Gentiles should become a part of the church. Acts also records a conflict between Paul and Barnabus over whether to include Mark in their mission, since Paul felt he abandoned them on an earlier journey. … We also see in the Gospels where the Apostles argue amongst each other about which of them is greater. … So, conflict was a part of the life of the Early Church, even in the lives of the Apostles.
There is a strange comfort in knowing that we aren’t so different from those early Christians. We can sometimes idealize them in a way that leaves us thinking they never had conflict. As if their lives were lived with confidence that they always knew what to do, and they always lived in perfect harmony with each other. … Strangely, I find comfort knowing that they sometimes struggled to know God’s will and sometimes disagreed with each other.
We can sometimes feel like we are failing if we are dealing with conflict. … I think we fail when we lose love for one another. When I look at the Early Church, I see them loving each other enough to work through their conflicts together. They knew they were in the same family. They were struggling to know the best way to follow Christ, and they had differing ideas about how to do that. They came together to pray through how to include the Gentiles. They saw each other as family. They loved each other enough to be together and pray and think through it.
Paul and Barnabus seemed to have had a falling out over Mark, but that separation didn’t last forever- they came together again. Peter and Paul had a disagreement, but in Peter’s second letter he describes Paul as, “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet 3:15), and tradition tells us that they were martyred together in Rome under Emperor Nero.
We are called to love. And love doesn’t mean we let go of truth. It means we listen to each other with care, trusting that maybe God will say something through that other person that I need to hear. It means thinking in the most gracious way I can about the person I’m disagreeing with. It means trusting that their motives are good, and giving them the benefit of the doubt. … But, love doesn’t mean never sharing what I believe to be true. It does mean speaking that truth in a way that is in alignment with my love for the other person. …
In last week’s Gospel reading we saw that Jesus believed that unrepentant sin towards another member of the community could lead to someone losing that community. So, we aren’t talking about everyone just blindly accepting everything everyone does or believes and calling that love- as if the community has no standards. In a family, love includes correction. Ultimately, the faithful beliefs and actions of the community are there for the health of the whole community, including for the one who sinned against that community. So, we aren’t talking about a kind of love that just avoids conflict. We are talking about a kind of love that is willing to work through the conflict.
We also aren’t talking about some sort of homogeneous way of thinking and believing. Theologians can disagree vigorously, and still see each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Not everything is a “deal breaker” regarding the Christian community. In our reading from Romans, Paul is dealing with some of these gray areas that he seems to think aren’t “deal breakers” for the community. There is an often quoted phrase from the 17th century that is used regarding church disagreements that goes,
“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”.[1]
And I think that sums up Paul’s thinking in our Romans reading quite well.
Paul is addressing two issues in our Romans reading. The first has to do with food. He says,
Paul is addressing two issues in our Romans reading. The first has to do with food. He says,
“Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them” (Rom 14:2-3).
Meat was the major issue regarding Kosher dietary laws. The easiest was to eat a Kosher diet was to be a vegetarian. Meat made eating Kosher more complicated because the animal had to be butchered in a particular way. For example, it couldn’t be strangled. In the Gentile world, most of the meat that would be available in the market would have been from Pagan temple sacrifices, which was definitely not Kosher.
But, ask yourself, how you would feel about eating meat that came from an animal that was sacrificed to Zeus? Or maybe intensify it a bit- What if the animal was sacrificed in some kind of Satanic ritual? Would you be okay eating the meat? … Would you feel like the meat had been spiritually tainted? Would you feel like buying that meat would be supporting rituals at a temple you fundamentally disagreed with? … This is the situation Paul is speaking into. In that Gentile context, some think that the faithful thing to do would be to eat a vegetarian diet.
Others believed that those gods weren’t real. So, what if a pagan priest waved his arms over and animal and said some funny words before it was butchered? That stuff is all pretend. It’s children playing a game. Those gods aren’t real, and even if they are, Christ is stronger. They serve the God who judged the Egyptian gods and rescued the people from Pharaoh (who they considered to be among their gods). Do they really think this could cause them any danger?
These people felt there wasn’t any issue with eating the meat. Nothing that went into them could make them unclean. The Holy Spirit within them was stronger than any ritual impurities.
Paul says,
But, ask yourself, how you would feel about eating meat that came from an animal that was sacrificed to Zeus? Or maybe intensify it a bit- What if the animal was sacrificed in some kind of Satanic ritual? Would you be okay eating the meat? … Would you feel like the meat had been spiritually tainted? Would you feel like buying that meat would be supporting rituals at a temple you fundamentally disagreed with? … This is the situation Paul is speaking into. In that Gentile context, some think that the faithful thing to do would be to eat a vegetarian diet.
Others believed that those gods weren’t real. So, what if a pagan priest waved his arms over and animal and said some funny words before it was butchered? That stuff is all pretend. It’s children playing a game. Those gods aren’t real, and even if they are, Christ is stronger. They serve the God who judged the Egyptian gods and rescued the people from Pharaoh (who they considered to be among their gods). Do they really think this could cause them any danger?
These people felt there wasn’t any issue with eating the meat. Nothing that went into them could make them unclean. The Holy Spirit within them was stronger than any ritual impurities.
Paul says,
“Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand” (14:3-4).
It’s interesting. No doubt Paul has an opinion on this matter, but he decides to suggest tolerance with each other, rather than tell them what to do. For him, this is not a “deal- breaker”. …
Paul does have things he considered to be deal breakers. In his letter to the Corinthians, he considers sexual immorality to be a deal breaker. In particular, he points to a man in their church who is in a relationship with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1-5). … Paul considers disbelief in the resurrection to be a “deal-breaker”. He says, “if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain” (1 Cor 15:14). So, we shouldn’t think that Paul is some kind of relativist, who thinks everyone is right in their own way. … No, Paul has a sense of which issue truly matter in a foundational sense, and which issues church members can have a different opinion about. “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”.
The other issue Paul refers to is special religious days. He is likely referring to the Sabbath, but he is probably also referring to the Jewish feasts- like Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths. … So, if you become a follower of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, what is the place of these special days in your life? … Jesus was Jewish. Jesus kept the Sabbath, and he celebrated the Feasts. He didn’t always follow them the way the Pharisees wanted him to, but they were a part of the rhythm of his earthly life. … You can imagine that if you are a Jewish follower of Jesus, then you would be inclined to continue celebrating these feasts. Why would you stop? They are biblical, and they would take on added significance when celebrated with Jesus in mind. … We talked about this in relation to Passover last week, for example.
If you are a Gentile follower of Jesus, you wouldn’t have the cultural momentum carrying you into the feasts. The Feasts and the Sabbath wouldn’t fit very well into Gentile society. How Jewish does someone have to be to follow Jesus? … Didn’t he fulfil the Passover? Why would a lamb need to be sacrificed if the Lamb of God shed his blood once for all? All of the sacrifices really pointed to the great self-sacrifice of the Son of God. … Didn’t Jesus say that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath? Didn’t he get in trouble for breaking Sabbath traditions? The Sabbath was overtaken by the Lord’s Day- the day of Resurrection- when they would celebrate the Lord’s Supper, which also replaces the Passover meal. This day was the day of the new creation bursting into the world making all things new! Besides, with the destruction of the Temple, many of these Feasts had to be celebrated differently than they had been.
It's easy to see how there could be clashing opinions in the Early Church over these kinds of issues. Paul says,
Paul does have things he considered to be deal breakers. In his letter to the Corinthians, he considers sexual immorality to be a deal breaker. In particular, he points to a man in their church who is in a relationship with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1-5). … Paul considers disbelief in the resurrection to be a “deal-breaker”. He says, “if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain” (1 Cor 15:14). So, we shouldn’t think that Paul is some kind of relativist, who thinks everyone is right in their own way. … No, Paul has a sense of which issue truly matter in a foundational sense, and which issues church members can have a different opinion about. “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”.
The other issue Paul refers to is special religious days. He is likely referring to the Sabbath, but he is probably also referring to the Jewish feasts- like Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths. … So, if you become a follower of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, what is the place of these special days in your life? … Jesus was Jewish. Jesus kept the Sabbath, and he celebrated the Feasts. He didn’t always follow them the way the Pharisees wanted him to, but they were a part of the rhythm of his earthly life. … You can imagine that if you are a Jewish follower of Jesus, then you would be inclined to continue celebrating these feasts. Why would you stop? They are biblical, and they would take on added significance when celebrated with Jesus in mind. … We talked about this in relation to Passover last week, for example.
If you are a Gentile follower of Jesus, you wouldn’t have the cultural momentum carrying you into the feasts. The Feasts and the Sabbath wouldn’t fit very well into Gentile society. How Jewish does someone have to be to follow Jesus? … Didn’t he fulfil the Passover? Why would a lamb need to be sacrificed if the Lamb of God shed his blood once for all? All of the sacrifices really pointed to the great self-sacrifice of the Son of God. … Didn’t Jesus say that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath? Didn’t he get in trouble for breaking Sabbath traditions? The Sabbath was overtaken by the Lord’s Day- the day of Resurrection- when they would celebrate the Lord’s Supper, which also replaces the Passover meal. This day was the day of the new creation bursting into the world making all things new! Besides, with the destruction of the Temple, many of these Feasts had to be celebrated differently than they had been.
It's easy to see how there could be clashing opinions in the Early Church over these kinds of issues. Paul says,
“Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God” (Rom 14:5-6).
The motivation of both sides is to honour the Lord. One side might be more correct than the other, but Paul suggests leaving that judgement to God.
We have plenty of these kinds of non “deal-breaker” issues in Christianity. The Pentecostals worship differently than the Roman Catholics. Within Anglicanism, some prefer the Book of Common Prayer to the Book of Alternative Services. Some prefer more modern music, while others prefer well known hymns. All of these are vessels to carry the Gospel. sometimes we confuse the container for the treasure it is supposed to contain. … We all have preferences regarding how good these vessels are, but none of them need to be “deal-breakers”. Paul says,
We have plenty of these kinds of non “deal-breaker” issues in Christianity. The Pentecostals worship differently than the Roman Catholics. Within Anglicanism, some prefer the Book of Common Prayer to the Book of Alternative Services. Some prefer more modern music, while others prefer well known hymns. All of these are vessels to carry the Gospel. sometimes we confuse the container for the treasure it is supposed to contain. … We all have preferences regarding how good these vessels are, but none of them need to be “deal-breakers”. Paul says,
“Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”
AMEN
[1] “Philip
Schaff, the distinguished nineteenth-century church historian, calls the saying
in our title “the watchword of Christian peacemakers.” Often attributed to
great theologians such as Augustine, it comes from an otherwise undistinguished
German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century, Rupertus
Meldenius. The phrase occurs in a tract on Christian unity written (circa 1627)
during the Thirty Years War (1618–1648)” https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/essentials-unity-non-essentials-liberty-all-things
Comments
Post a Comment