Part 1 of this post introduced the text and many of its general themes. Today we’ll look at its more challenging themes and the difficulties we have in applying them today.
Explore (cont.)
Ritual Purity
While the passage ends up defending those who maintain an idea of ritual purity, it can’t be lost how strongly it argues against it as a concept. According to the Gospels, Jesus himself categorically rejected ritual purity, saying:
Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer? … It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person. (Mark 7.18-23)
And, the Acts of the Apostles tells the story of Peter having his own scruples shaken when it comes to ‘unclean’ foods. In a vision, he saw a tablecloth laden with all kinds of foods prohibited by Jewish Law, and heard a voice commanding him to eat; he refused, stating his complete commitment to avoiding unclean foods, only to be scolded: “What God has made clean, you must not call profane” (Acts 11.9; for the story see 10.1-33, summarized in 11.5-11).
With this in mind, it’s not surprising that Paul rejects ritual purity here. But the force of his language here couldn’t be stronger:
- “nothing is unclean in itself, but is unclean for anyone who considers it unclean” (14.14)
- “All things are indeed clean” (14.20)
As Eberhart notes, this is nothing short of “revolutionary” and “groundbreaking” for someone who identified as a proud Jew to say. Verse 14 even takes a bit of a postmodern turn, recognizing that it is the opinions of the person or group that make something clean or unclean.
Stumbling Blocks
While Paul is clear where he stands on this issue of ritual purity, it is more important for him that the Christian community is governed by love and care for everyone (Kruse 519; Jewett (2008) 860; SBL). If the exercise of one’s freedom in Christ is causing division, even to the point of causing some to stumble, then it’s not worth it; in fact, it even turns an action which is not sinful into sin, for it violates the law of love (Witherington 339; Eberhart).
We see here how Paul’s ethics — like Jesus’ — go beyond simple matters of right and wrong. It’s not about the regulation of behaviour but about building up the community and living out God’s peace. (As Paul puts it elsewhere: “’All things are permissible for me’, but not all things are edifying” (1 Corinthians 6.12).) So, our thoughts and attitudes towards other people are just as important as our actions (cf. Matthew 5.28). And moreover, there is a consequentialism at work here: We cannot hide behind our own virtue or good intentions: the impact our behaviours have on the world is the criterion that determines their goodness (cf. Jesus’ teaching, “A tree is known by its fruit” (Matthew 12.33)). This is a radical and communitarian perspective on virtue and ethics (Witherington 334; Eberhart).
Challenge
We’ve seen in this study that Paul exhorts the Roman assemblies to a radical way of love. With the issues he specifically mentions in the text, foods served at communal meals and religious calendars, the approach he suggests makes sense. But what about when bigger issues are at play? Romans 14 has been used by churches, for example, to justify a conservative approach to issues of race, gender, and sexuality. We may want to move forward, they say, but we don’t want to grieve those who oppose the changes. To some extent, this does make sense; in order to work well, change in a community needs to bring as many people with it as possible. And, churches which have moved in a more progressive direction on those issues have consistently seen schisms as a result. By Paul’s standards here, would these progressive decisions be sinful?
But, in all these cases, unlike the ones Paul is directly addressing, the status quo is in some way exclusionary. Schism is indeed a heinous sin. But is it worse than racism? Or refusing the leadership charisms so evident in women in our churches? Or rejecting the faithfulness of queer Christians? A tree will be judged by its fruit, but how are we to judge which fruit is worse?
Paul’s own example in all this is inconsistent. He was absolutely insistent on the full inclusion of Gentiles in the community of faith, while also rejecting any sense of Gentile cultural or ethnic superiority. But while at times he seemed very supportive of women and their ministries (e.g., his referring to some as apostles and fellow-workers, and sending Phoebe to be his mouthpiece in Rome), at other times he (or the tradition that developed around him) upheld traditional gender dynamics (Ephesians 5.22-24) and placed limitations on women’s expression in church (e.g., 1 Timothy 2.12). Where he takes a more conservative approach, it seems does it to avoid making the community look bad before the rest of society. On the one hand again, this makes sense: For a nascent movement that caused disruption wherever it went, being seen to be unthreatening was important. (As it happens, ancient anti-Christian rhetoric called them atheists and cannibals, so this concern about reputation was not unfounded.) But, on the other hand, as always, it is the marginalized who bear the brunt of the status quo, which is why, as the saying goes, neutrality is support for oppression. Can we really say we are living out the law of love by perpetuating marginalization and unequal opportunity within our communities? I don’t think that we can.
I don’t have an answer to this. Paul is absolutely correct in that when it comes to divisive issues in the Church, the law of love must be first and foremost in our hearts. Crucially, however, this needs to apply to all sides. Here, Paul’s words are harsher towards those who have a more expansive understanding of Christian freedom, but those with a narrower viewpoint are also called to respect, not judge, and show genuine love for those with whom they disagree. Paul’s argumentation also reveals that thorny questions are always going to be contextual. There must be room for ‘local options’.
If nothing else, Paul’s line of thought here insists that we tone down our rhetoric about our deeply held convictions and put love of neighbour first and foremost.
Expand
As much as ‘expansive’ readings of Scripture help us to grow, they should also make us feel a little uncomfortable. For the gospel is always counter-cultural, no matter the culture or subculture with which we identify. Here the communitarian orientation is absolutely counter-cultural in our individualistic Western society. We are being called out of ourselves, our beliefs, and self-interest to look for what is the best, most faithful approach that best promotes God’s peace, which is not just the absence of conflict but the presence of justice as expressed in loving, reciprocal, good-faith relationships. While yes, at times its application is going to be tricky, especially when bigger issues of identity are at play, Paul’s words here remain among the most challenging, and therefore, most expansive in all his writings.
Summary & Conclusions
To a community divided along lines of religious scruples, Paul takes an unexpected approach. Rather than focusing on which side is theologically right, he emphasizes the impact attitudes and actions by one side toward the other have on the community. Difference is okay, and perhaps even to be celebrated, but division is not. As with all things, love is the key. While we recognize that applying this approach is always going to be difficult, even moreso when weightier issues are at play, it remains a wise one. (It’s also canon.)
* For full references, please see the series bibliography.
Matthew Root 