Inform Your 'Faith'

    The Pauline loving posture (touched upon in the last blog) understandably involves priority, self-control, selflessness, attitude, position, behavior, perception and the like. All elements of the communal and social dynamic are touched upon by this relational ethic. “Paul realizes that building up the community often requires believers to make personal sacrifices,” (Frank Matera). There is an interwoven tapestry within the parameters of Romans 14 and 15, while Paul promulgates individualistic responsibilities that promote a communal consciousness. “To benefit the weak is at the same time to the advantage of the Christian community as a whole,” (Douglas Moo).

    The apostle advances, “Let us pursue what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding,” (14:19).  At this point Paul’s speaking to the strong believer. The usage of “us” is a reference to the believer who acknowledges his rights. The NIV translates this verse, “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” This vernacular is resplendent with meaning. The transliterations are quite telling. The usage of “upbuilding” or “edification” advance that Paul views the church as a building or edifice. Indeed, this is an analogous way of speaking. That being said though the imagery associated with such language is constructive for it is invariably the “work of God” (Rom.14:20). He asserts that the community of believers is much like a building project that is undergoing renovation or ongoing construction as it were. “This implies that it (the church) is a united body. However, this edifice or building must not be thought of as being finished. No, it is constantly rising (Eph. 4:16). Even the individual stones are anything but static. If matters are as they should be, the stones are in the process of being made more and more beautiful...The main building material is love (Eph. 4:16). This is even more important than liberty.”

    A concerted effort is to inexorably be made for this effect or outcome in the life and culture of the church regardless of “rights.” The cultivation of “peace” and “upbuilding” is an endeavor that is to be ceaselessly sought even at the cost of setting aside liberties or rights. The inevitable outcome is, “that this work, carried out in the individual members, will have a beneficial effect on the growth of the whole community.”(F.F.Bruce) Pauline etiquette demands it as it accords with love. “A selfish insistence on liberty may tear down and destroy, but love, when it is exercised, will invariably build up.”(Everrett Harrison) Paul succinctly asserts this much when writing elsewhere, “love builds up” (I Cor.8:1). So to deliberately and volitionally exercise ones liberty to the dismissal of peace and mutual edification is to selfishly elevate ones privileges over and against the welfare of a fellow believer and consequently the church community. Moule posits that this, “‘action(selfish insistence of liberty) is, more or less, calculated for his (the weaker believer) perdition. And all the while this soul, for which, in comparison with your dull and narrow “liberty”, you care so little was so much, cared for by the Lord that he died for it.’” Though Moule’s verbiage may be rather excessive and bellicose, for there are both intended and unintended consequences to actions, he nevertheless acutely recognizes that when failing to consciously consider the edification of our neighbor (14:19, 15:2) we betray loves proper ambulation and thus the welfare and well-being of our neighbor. As F.F.Bruce comments, “The interests of the gospel and the highest well-being of men and women were paramount considerations with him (i.e., Paul).” Love does not merely seek to protect the weaker from exposure to an expression of rights they perhaps struggle with. That is an empty formality and ineffectual in terms of “mutual upbuilding.” Instead, it seeks to forfeit those permissible liberties for the benefit of the neighbor because, “there are moments when the demands of love are best expressed by keeping personal convictions a matter between oneself and God rather than insisting upon them.”(F.F.Bruce)

    This verbiage of upbuilding or edification is interspersed throughout Pauline nomenclature. These are translations of the Greek, oikodome, which is used in many Pauline epistles (I Cor.14:3, 5, 12, 26, II Cor.10:812:19, 13:10, Eph.4:12, 16, 29, I Thess. 5:11) As stated above it bespeaks a growth and maturity; or a veritable edifice of improvement. It is an effect of beneficial permanence Paul is aiming to promote within the church. At Corinth Paul pens, “Pursue love...For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their ubbuilding...The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophecies builds up the church,” (I Cor.14:1-5). Paul’s restriction of tongues speech without interpretation is based on the effect that it does not “upbuild” the church when gathered, just the individual. The point is that Paul’s interest when employing oikodome is always for the progress and solidarity of those to whom he is referring. As stated above Paul is not simply calling for cautious restraint of liberties. He is exhorting the strong to suspend rights and actively make painstaking efforts for the nurture and progressive maturation or development of the weaker. For Paul it is an ecclesiological ethic of love that promotes Christian growth and maturation.

    To marginalize or to exclude the weaker believer from participation in various gatherings, events or any of the social milieu and the like on the basis of liberty is to consciously truncate the salient thrust of Paul’s reasoning. As he declares, “We who are strong,” are, “not to please ourselves” (15:1). Paul insists at the onset of chapter 14 that believers are to “welcome” the weaker. This should not be restricted to a superficial laissez faire mentality considering that, “the verb means ‘receive or accept into ones society, home, circle of acquaintance and implies that the Roman Christians were not only to ‘tolerate’ the ‘weak’ but that they were to treat them as brothers and sisters in the intimate fellowship typical of the people of God.”(Douglas Moo) To receive is not passively tolerating or superficially recognizing a neighbor or brother as part of the church. That would be reductionism. Instead, it connotes an active effort on behalf of the strong believer to engage and routinely involve the weaker in the communal cultus. To do otherwise would be negligent and perfunctory. According to Paul’s points of emphases, “They must be fully ‘accepted,’ that is, not only should they be formally recognized as members in good and regular standing of the church but they must also be heartily welcomed into daily fellowship with all believers.”

    Priority is not to be assigned strictly to prevention of offense, though that is sine qua none, but to the unequivocal pursuit of, “peace and mutual upbuilding,” as well as unabatedly aiming to, “please his neighbor for his good, to build him up,” (14:19, 15:2). John Calvin submits that strong believers should, “consider those greater things which ought to have first place in all our action, and so to have the precedence...for in order to promote these two, concord and edification, all the duties of love ought to be exercised.” As Paul pens to Corinth under similar circumstances, “all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor,” (I Cor.10:23-34). A believer’s eating and drinking rights should not dictate the communal dynamic of the church, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,” (Rom.14:17). This is language that bespeaks, “Right behavior within the community of believers.”(Moo) The communal atmosphere of the church is inextricably bound up in how the relationships of the individuals that comprise it are governed. Right’s are of secondary importance when the believer’s neighbor is rightfully borne in mind because, “external commodities like food and drink are ethically neutral compared with the things that matter most," as F.F.Bruce asserts.

    I recall an occasion some time after America’s military campaign in Iraq. A soldier who was killed in the line of duty was returned to the states. Accordingly, his family had made funeral and burial arrangements. While the family of this fallen soldier was grieving at the grave side a group of anti-war protesters spewed their maledictions in the direction of that family. This of course disrupted the ceremony and interfered with the mourning process. Indeed, the protestors have the right to freedom of speech and public assembly, but at what expense? The exercise of their rights intruded upon another family’s ability to mourn. Again, all things are lawful but not all things are profitable. The willful suspension of rights is irrefragably necessary for “peace and mutual up building.” To do so reaches the pinnacle of Paul’s ethic and additionally fulfills the golden rule Christ articulated, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets,” (Matt.7:12). It even ostensibly supersedes that for in so doing we do so “for the glory of God,” (cf.Rom.15:7).

    Paul is inarguably repudiating self-gratification or self interest throughout. He asserts that the strong are not to please themselves but to please their neighbors, (15:2). He highlights this as he culminates this discourse with suitable reference to Christ as the exemplar of self denial, “for Christ did not please himself,” (15:3a). When juxtaposing this with Paul’s ethical movement (14:1-15:2) it is clear that loving one’s neighbor entails sacrifice. Love properly understood recognizes that, “the sacrifice of Christ is the foundation of the Christian Ethos; therefore the idea of sacrifice is its ‘principle.’”(Emil Brunner) This succinct reference to self-humiliation (15:3) is best elucidated in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. Paul belabors, “in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others,” (Phil.2:3-4). John Chrysostom pontificated on the topic of walking charitably toward the weaker neighbor, “You see how far, for the present, he (Paul) goes in affection for him, showing that he makes so great account of him, that by yieldingness would rather draw him to himself, and by charity.” The priority of our neighbor is to be pursued above and beyond personal gratification vis a vis our rights. According to the apostle believers are to champion the well being and “good” of their neighbor over and against the exaltation or propagandizing of their liberties. “It is they, those who truly sense their liberty on these matters, who are to put their exercise of that liberty in perspective and to subordinate it to the far more important ‘good’ of their fellow believer’s edification.”

    Paul undoubtedly places inestimable stock on self denial. He himself was a practitioner of withholding his rights as alluded to above...In I Corinthians 9, the apostle sarcastically and rhetorically acknowledges his rights to eat, drink, marry, and to refrain from working for a living (9:4-6,12a) while subsequently enlarging upon his right to be financially supported by the church. He reminds them, “We have not made use of this right,” (9:12b, 15). Paul withheld his liberties for reasons that proved beneficial to the church at Corinth. His interests were more on their “upbuilding” and “edification” than upon his rights as it were. Martin Luther touches on this when he writes, “A Christian is a most free lord of all, subject to none,” yet he unabashedly acknowledges the higher virtue of loving  and sacrificial servitude shortly after in saying, “A Christian is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.”

    As I touched on earlier a believer’s liberty or rights can be used to discriminate or to show partiality. The principle of impartiality in James 2 especially speaks to this. James is specifically addressing distinctions that were being made. In so doing he employs a hypothetical scenario of the rich and the poor; or, the haves and the have nots. Distinctions led invariably to acts of discrimination. The rich and the poor were then separated or divided into veritable social classes (2:2-3). According to James’ reasoning, preferential treatment (vs. 3) was given to the well off to such an egregious extent that James concludes, “They have dishonored the poor man,” (2:6). (These actions though public create an effect in the consciousness of the favored suggesting that this is my crowd.)

    By showing partiality and preferential treatment to the haves at the expense of marginalizing the poor they were, “committing sin,” (2:9).Of course this ethic does not preclude close friendships or more intimate relationships with certain persons instead of others. The legitimacy of fostering more intimate relational bonds with some and not others is espoused within holy writ. Jesus had three who were arguably closer than the other nine and the wisdom literature promotes discretion within the friendship nexus. The point here is not to dissuade from close friendships but that dictating who is welcome into a sphere of relational fellowship on grounds of “rights” or “liberties” is categorically rejected by Paul and contrary to the N. T. portrait of the Christian community. It cultivates discrimination and polarity. Distinctions are not in and of themselves obtuse but the misuse of distinctions that erect relational and communal boundaries are biblically eschewed. (Cf. I Cor. 1:10-15)

    As James inquires, “have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2:4). Such distinctions when occasioned by elevating the rights of a believer over and against those who do not have that knowledge are made for the sole purpose of self gratification. Distinctions are not inherently dubious; it is when distinctions lead to preferential treatment or favoritism that those distinctions are beguiled. It is more or less that, “The basis for showing favor is terribly wrong.”

    This practice will invariably, if not inevitably, lead to compartmentalization of the church which is contrary to her organic unity and communal nature. Again, the “kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking.” A believer’s individual rights are of secondary importance within the boundaries of the church’s pathos and ethos.

    To counteract and repudiate the dysfunctional improprieties of showing favoritism or discrimination James refers to the royal law, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” (2:8, Lev.19:18). The later is subsumed under the former as a governing dynamic. The phrase “royal law” bespeaks a certain precedence that is intrinsic to that commandment. It is coined as a royal law, “because it is the supreme law to which all other laws governing human relationships are subordinate.”

    This is the very law that is governing Paul’s address to Rome regarding liberties, (13:8-10, 14:15) as already elucidated. This ethic of love Paul and James both propound must be the motivating force and movement behind the exercise of liberty; otherwise that liberty can and will be reduced to tyranny. As Paul elaborates in his letter to the Corinthians, “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way...Love never ends,” (I Cor. 13:4-5, 8).

    Commenting on this posture of love Jonathon Edwards penned, “First, let not your heart go after the things of this world, as your chief good. Indulge not yourself in the possession of earthly things, as though they were to satisfy your soul. This is the reverse of seeking heaven; it is to go in a way contrary to that which leads to the world of love. If you would seek heaven, your affections must be taken off from the pleasures of the world. You must not allow yourself in sensuality, or worldliness, or the pursuit of the enjoyments or honors of the world, or occupy your thoughts or time in heaping up the dust of the earth. You must mortify the desires of vain-glory, and become poor in spirit and lowly in heart.”

    This attitude must penetrate the recesses of the believer’s heart and mind. It must abound and be promoted within the citadel of the church. This ethic of love must always precede the individual, much more the collective, exercise of rights or liberties. As Paul said in Ephesians, “...put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony,” (Eph.3:14).

    It ostensibly seems that liberty has been reduced to a misnomer in our day. Liberty is regularly exercised without restraint and without consideration as though it has no moral or ethical antecedent. I would even venture to say it has, in and of itself, been elevated to the ranks of a governing ethical imperative. This malpractice has displaced the role of charity/love, altruism,  and  being selfless all of which are encapsulated in the second greatest commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" while it also betrays the Golden Rule to "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." I will address this in two installments.

    The primary aim of this adumbrated work is to address the christian’s liberty. Let it be known that the present writer is confessedly a staunch subscriber to the Apostle Paul’s own position as admitted in his letter to the church at Rome, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself,” (Rom. 14:14a; cf. 14:20d), and again in a rhetorical question posed to those at Corinth, “Do we not have the right to eat and drink?” (I Cor. 9:4).

    Nevertheless the reality of the believer’s right or liberty is not here in question nor will focused effort be exerted to establish or defend those rights. Instead, preponderance will be given to the proper exercise and administration of those rights respectively. Primary attention will be given to Chapter 14 of Romans in order to lay the appropriate groundwork while references will be incorporated from I Corinthians 8, 9, and 10 and James in order to underscore the primary proposition.

    Inasmuch as holy writ, especially Pauline nomenclature, affirms certain liberties a believer may enjoy it also describes and gives allowance for what Paul characterizes as “the weaker person,” (Rom. 14:2, I Cor. 8:11; cf. I Cor. 9:22), with a “weak conscience,” (Rom. 15:1, I Cor. 8:7, 11, 12). Conversely to the extent that Scripture affirms the presence of the latter it must be borne in mind that in no way does their posture or “weaker conscience” nullify nor determine what a believer’s rights are, “for why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?” (I Cor. 10:29).

    This truth notwithstanding, scripture does incontrovertibly advance that how a believer, who maintains those permissible liberties, exercises his or her respective rights, is far more paramount than the mere enjoyment of them. Indeed, the exercise thereof is predicated upon cognizance and proper consideration of the weaker neighbor. To be nonchalant in matters of exercising liberties and rights can lead to conduct unbecoming of the Gospel and also undermine the church’s communion.

  Paul most trenchantly develops an ethic or modus vivendi germane to the proper exercise of liberty in his correspondence to the church at Rome. After addressing the discriminatory judgments toward others depending on what they eat, drink, or what day a person observes (Rom. 14), Paul concludes that refrain is necessitated under certain circumstances and for certain reasons (Rom. 14:13, 16, 19, 20-22, 15:1-2). Priority is to be given to those, “fully convinced in their own mind,” (Rom. 14:5) regarding what they abstain from (Rom. 14:3) due to their conscience. Concerted effort is to be made in avoiding stumbling blocks (Rom. 14:13, 20-21), hindrances (14:13) and grievances (14:15).

    To be culpable of any of these three effects is tantamount in Paul’s mind to, “no longer walking in love,” (Rom. 14:15). Of course Paul relates walking in love to not wronging one’s neighbor and thus fulfilling the law (cf. Rom. 13:9-10). It is incumbent upon a contemporary reader of this letter to not isolate this passage for mere topical use. Paul’s ancient readers would have juxtaposed the former phrase (Rom. 14:15) with the phraseology of 13:9-10; especially considering he elaborated on that “second greatest commandment” the very pericope preceding this chapter. There is the effect that this commandment is the latent undercurrent that is informing Paul’s practical resolutions interspersed throughout Chapter 14. Paul’s assertions are not vacuous nor disconnected inventions of caprice. Instead, they are part and parcel accessible extrapolations of the command to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” applied to the judgments and subsequent discriminatory practices prevailing amongst the Christians in Rome. (This will be explored later.)

    Appropriately so, then, to have a working knowledge of Paul’s prescribed precautions and nevertheless exercise one’s rights without his neighbor in mind is contrary to upholding the law, thus constituting sin. The interests of the weaker neighbor in issues pertaining to liberties or rights are unequivocal. Paul’s prevailing concern is not to merely establish variegated Christian rights or to promote a libertine exercise of those rights as much as it is to acknowledge that both positions (the stronger and the weaker) are viable and to promulgate a cautionary or restrained exercise of the respective Christian rights he does in fact espouse.

    What is more, this Pauline etiquette espouses the suspension of or privatization of rights when necessary consideration is given to the weaker. This, in Paul’s mind is a behavioral imperative and thus binding upon those who have knowledge of their liberty. To be sure, the apostle recognizes, “everything to be clean,” yet despite this admission he posits, “The faith you have, keep between yourself and God,” (14:22). This assertion even intimates that attempts to persuade the weaker believer is a violation of the ethic Paul is advancing in this chapter. At the onset of this chapter Paul interjects, “as for the one, who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions,” (14:1). For instance, if a weaker believer were to consider a stronger believer’s argumentation regarding liberty, conclude it to be persuasive and subsequently partake of what his conscience previously forbade though still harboring reticence he sins. For Paul says, “whoever doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin,” (14:23). Indeed, Paul inserts his resolve concerning rights (14:14, 20), yet he no where endeavors to convince or persuade the weaker of those rights. There is an implicit undertone that suggests not to publicize your position or better not to propagandize. According to F.F. Bruce, the weaker, are to be, “not challenged forthwith to a debate about those areas of life in which he is still unemancipated." Nevertheless, the thrust of 14:22 is noticeably particularized and individualized. Paul is directing this assertion to the strong believer at this juncture. “It is as if Paul, in his imagination, is listening to a ‘strong’ believer; one, however, who delights in hearing himself talk. That loud talker is saying, ‘I insist on my freedom; and I say that I will not allow anyone to interfere with that unrestrained freedom of mine,’ etc. So Paul, as it were, answers, ‘You better keep between yourself and God that conviction you have,’” (Hendrickson).

    Parenthetically, this overriding principle is also at the heart of I Corinthians 8. Paul is writing the Corinthians regarding issues of food “offered to idols.” He, of course, explicates that, “an idol has no real existence,” (I Cor. 8:4). Yet he also acknowledges those who do not “possess this knowledge,” (I Cor. 8:7) thus subsisting with a weak conscience (I Cor. 8:7). Due to this converse the Corinthian with knowledge of his rights is to walk circumspectly with regard to public consumption especially (I Cor. 8:10). Paul inculcates for them to refrain from or “take care” of those rights so as to, “not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak,” (I Cor. 8:9). It is glaringly obvious, especially with the illustration he employs, from the points of emphases in Chapters 8 and 9 that public exhibition’s of rights are counterproductive. The overarching thrust of Paul’s tone is on exerting cognitive energy to keep the weaker believer actively in mind prior to exercising one’s liberties or rights. As we shall see though this extends beyond merely restricting one’s liberties.

    Paul employs a hypothetical “what if” scenario in his illustration to underscore the seriousness and necessity of this modus operandi (8:10-11). Therefore, the believer with rights is to expend energy to explore the possible “what ifs” relative to the weaker conscience prior to any exercising of his or her liberty. The strong believer is to relinquish the exercise of any and all rights for the benefit of his neighbor. Paul himself was a practitioner of his own conscientious ethic. The apostle had every right to benefit from the monetary support of the Corinthians in proportion to his ministerial labor (9:6-14). However, he and the others involved in such labors chose not to utilize this right due to the effects such rights may have incurred on those at Corinth (cf. 9:12,15). Paul penned, “We have not made use of this right,” (vs.12) and a few verses following reiterated, “I have not made use of any of these rights,” (vs.15). Did Paul in fact have the right or rights? Indeed! Did Paul exercise his rights? No! The effects of the exercise thereof apparently would not have been beneficial to those his actions would have impacted according to the text. Suitably, Paul refrained from the employment of his rights. Moreover, he indubitably compels the Corinthian believers to follow suit and emulate his example in Chapter 8 as already noted.

    This praxis was evidently lacking in Rome as the church there was splintered and fractured due to theological, cultural, and practical differences. This is evinced in the references to an ostensibly scattered church (ch. 16) and Paul’s admonition for them to, “live in harmony with one another,” and to, “together...with one voice glorify the God and Father...,” (15:5-7). Note, this was interjected after addressing the variegated differences leading to separation thus giving the contextual support for presence of such disharmonious relations within the borders of the church. So, the emphasis on harmony and unity was deliberate verbiage counteracting the discriminatory effects of their differences. The grammatical and literary components of 14:1-15:13 also underscore this purpose as, “Paul accentuates the theme of mutuality,” (Douglas Moo). Additionally, Paul launches into this discussion with an exhortation to “welcome” (14:1) a fellow believer and also culminates with the same phraseology of welcoming one another (15:7). This forms a literary inclusion. The purpose of such a literary device is to clearly establish and magnify the purpose as stated in those phrases at the beginning and end.

    So it is that the inconsiderate exercise if rights aside from the teeming ideological/theological divergence leads Paul to propound a privatization of rights. His assertion, “the faith you have, keep between yourself and God,” (14:22) is not merely ideological but also practical. The practice of associating or identifying with those who share your same outlook on rights can breed exclusivism and segregation.

    Though the church in our day might not accurately reflect the theological contradistinctions in Rome it is still possible to resemble the compartmentalized condition that precipitated from one group eschewing the viable preferences of the other germane to liberties and rights. The church must be acutely aware of this vulnerability. She becomes susceptible to discrimination when the social and congregational dynamic is dictated by one’s rights. It undermines the unity of the church.

    Another aspect of Paul’s modus vivendi here supersedes the simple restraint and privatization of rights. To limit Paul’s ethic here to preventative methodologies that are to be adhered to in order to preclude the infringement of one group’s rights upon another that envisages a weaker conscience fails to ascend to the apex of his advance. For Paul is noticeably more interested in, “what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding,” (14:19) as well as to, “please,” one’s, “neighbor for his good and to build him up,” (Rom. 15:1-2). This will be explored in the following sections.

    Again, the issue fundamentally reduces to how a “strong” believer (Rom. 15:1) exercises his or her rights with the “weaker” neighbor in mind. Although Paul affirms both the stronger and weaker persons’ postures, with admonitions for both interspersed throughout 14:1-12, he amplifies his focus on the stronger believer’s dutiful and ethical responsibility with respect to his weaker neighbor throughout 14:13-15:3, as I already amorphously touched upon. He noticeably launches into this discourse on the grounds of love as inferred from verse 15 (cf. 13:8-10, 15:2). “Paul’s basis of approach to the stronger brother has changed from granting him his position on the grounds of liberty. Now, the appeal is not to liberty but to love, which may call forth a measure of sacrifice,” (Everett Harrison). To be sure, the salient mooring out of which the loving, ethical, and imperative culminating clause, “we who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak,” (15:1) and the comparable underpinnings of Chapter 14 to that affect proceeds from the “second greatest commandment.” Commenting on 15:2, Douglas Moo rightly maintains that, “by using the term ‘neighbor’ Paul makes it clear that he bases his plea to the strong on the love command.” This ethic of love is much more demanding than a superficial restriction of one’s liberties. The latter posture places inordinate stock on “knowledge” as a line of demarcation. Knowledge of rights and knowledge of believers without that knowledge becomes the basis of action. Naturally, then prevention of offense becomes primary. Knowledge transposes the ethic of love and becomes the standard. However, Paul posits, “...we know that ‘all of us possess knowledge.’ This ‘knowledge’ puffs up, but love builds up...” (I Cor. 8:1-3). The standard should be love which recognizes knowledge and subsumes or subjects that knowledge to that ethic of love for, “one who loves does not...adopt an attitude of superior knowledge, and try to act as guardian to the other; he knows that his only guide is love,” (Emil Brunner). The ethic of love is a voluntary choice and action that promotes the place of the neighbor. It is intrinsically sacrificial.

    Paul’s ethic of love does in a real sense infringe upon a believer’s ability to exercise their rights without inhibition. This notion leads Chrysostom to assert, “You see how much he (Paul) insists upon charity (or love). And this is because he is aware that it can do anything. And on this ground he makes somewhat large demand on them.” It is not always the most convenient ethical truth but it is the most profitable and beneficial. To insist upon erecting barriers so that liberties have precedence is incompatible with the biblical rudiments of love. As Emil Brunner postulates, “love does not respect barriers, it transcends them; it means going out towards the other, identifying myself with him; it means ‘loving one's neighbor as oneself,’ the renunciation of one’s natural and just reserve, it means sacrifice.”  

    The prevalent conceptions of selfish individualism and social collectivism that pervade society at large and the church in our day date as far back as ancient Greece and Socrates. These conceptions do not actually inhere within the New Testament construct of communio. The biblical construct of communio views the church as a whole that is comprised of individuals who are inextricably bound by sacrificial love in Christ Jesus who himself embodied this ethic of sacrificial love and charity.  The church abroad needs to again embrace a willful suspense of "liberties" and return to a praxis of selflessness. This praxis was commonplace in the first few centuries of the church and has, since then, receded into the periphery. When liberty is misused it transmutates into tyranny and this is why charity must govern. The individual exercise of liberty without charity is individualistic tyranny!

    This ethic of liberty and charity will be explored more in the next blog.  

“...They boast falsely of liberty, who know not how to make a right use of it."
                                                                                                                 ~ John Calvin

  We return to the consideration of anger. In the previous treatment, it was established that anger within the ranks of mankind is more often than not a sinful, carnal expression. Anger, when associated with humanity within scripture, predominantly exemplifies a person whose reasoning capacity has been overrun. Consequently, they are rendered a slave to their carnal passions while self control, which is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 6:1), is categorically rejected. John Calvin speaks of such a one as "resembling a madman." Of course it is impossible to reason with a madman for reason is not ruling as sanctification is jettisoned. Again, Calvin describes the phraseology of anger within holy writ as indicative of, "that depravity of mind which is opposed to humanity and justice, and which is usually called malignity." As I have posited in Anger, Part I anger is a resident evil that eschews sanctified reasoning and represents a lapse into the carnal psyche. A. Skevington Wood underscores this in saying, "Anger...signifies an unjustifiable human emotion that manifests itself in noisy assertiveness (krauge; literally, 'shouting;' NIV, 'brawling') and abuse (blasphemia). The poisonous source of all these regrettable re-assertions of the old self is named malice." 

  A common contention with this position, which the lion share of scholarship will attest to, is that the Old Testament is replete with references to God as "angry." Indeed, Old Testament nomenclature frequently speaks of God in such a way. Yet, it is easy to understand that superficially and subsequently apply that characteristic superficially. The regular acknowledgement of God's anger throughout the old covenant is more or less an anthropomorphic (speaking of God in human terms or assigning human qualities to God to describe Him), expression or description of God's actions being provoked (a literal Hebrew translation of one of the two words for anger, ka ac, in the Old Testament is provoke), by some form of sin. Does this mean that ascriptions of anger to God are erroneous or flawed? Of course not. God has revealed His quality, being and nature in history (personally and directly through revelatory events) and within scripture (through human language vis a vis inspiration). So, these are inarguably reliable references to His person. However, we tend to apply our preconceptions of anger based upon human categories to these ascriptions for whatever reason. Perhaps to justify our reactions or over-reactions. Perhaps to excuse our sin or to dismiss our mistreatment or mishandling of things. 

  God's anger cannot be defined by human experience alone because the human experience is tarnished by sin. It is commonplace for humanity to personify abstractions to better understand or to be more comfortable with certain phenomena. So, we treat anger as one of God's natural attributes. Anger, though, is not a natural attribute of God. God's expressive anger and wrath are the affects of God's holiness and righteousness against man's sin. Before sin entered into the fray of creation en toto anger and wrath would not have been present or operative. Speaking on divine wrath Louis Berkhof asserts that, "in a sinless world there would be no place for its exercise...." Sin is not natural therefore, anger and wrath cannot be defined in such a way. Now, God has not been changed by sin by becoming wrathful or angry but man has undeniably been changed by sin and now the human experience and knowledge of God has been drastically altered. God's anger is essentially humankind's factual experience of God's unchanging holiness and righteousness in a fallen world order and an existence (redemptive and unredemptive) tarnished by the lingering effects of sin.

  God's anger and wrath are expressions of His perfect justice (equity), righteousness and holiness. The former are God's application of the latter against those things contrary to His eternal perfections. His justice, righteousness and holiness are the causative attributes of His biblically identifiable anger and wrath. The latter of course being constituents of the causative attributes. This is why Martin Luther spoke of God's real wrath as the "alien work of God." Therefore, God's anger and wrath are fundamentally executed upon the predicates of His ineffable holiness and righteousness. The corporeal manifestations of punishment and consequence are not contiguous with anger but are instead contiguous with His intrinsic holiness and righteousness. This is necessarily true because, "His acts are determined by His nature, His disapprobation of sin must manifest itself in acts," (Charles Hodge on God's attribute of holiness in relation to punishment), and these acts are described as His anger. God's anger is better understood as subsumed under the attributes of holiness and righteousness in terms of absolute and relative justice or more specifically distributive justice. There is much more to be said in relation to this subject matter but I think it would only serve as monotonous minutiae. Suffice it to say God's "anger" as evinced in the Old Testament corpus is dictated by His holiness and righteousness in accord with His divine aversion to anything contrary.

  This of course is just as true germane to the variegated expressions of Christ's palpable "angry" actions as recorded in the Gospels.

  The warp and woof of the matter is that God's angry and wrathful movements within scripture are best understood as divine effulgence's or even implements, so to speak, of His perfect holiness and righteousness, and this in regards to sin. His wrath and anger are not obfuscated by tarnished emotions as in humanity's case. As Tertullian said in his treatise, Against Marcion, "God may be wrathful but He is not irritated." It is incumbent upon all within Christendom, especially with those who struggle with anger, to recognize that God's wrath and anger are governed by perfect holiness and righteousness while being entirely devoid of human pitfalls. We, on the other hand, are fallible beings rife with many imperfections. To presume that we can be carte blanche practitioners of "anger" is to be rather credulous or pompous. This is why Paul exhorts the Ephesians to "be angry and sin not," and then promulgates that they are to purge themselves of anger. It appears to be problematic for Paul to allow anger to be cultivated as normative. The writings and voices of the patristic churchmen will also evince this to be true. To be quick tempered or quick to anger is undeniably opposed to the character of God, who is Himself  "slow to anger" (Psalm 103:8), and the overwhelming thrust of holy writ.

  Now anger when properly understood and exercised with regenerate and biblical fidelity is most surely a useful quality. This will only be achieved when anger is seen as an execution of righteousness and holiness against biblically defined sin alone; over and against human preferences and traditions of caprice. Expressing anger because of one's own personal preferences being violated is tantamount to bigotry.

  A wholesome anger though will aim at retarding anything sinful. When employed in that manner it is indeed a virtue par excellence. As the Puritan Richard Baxter's asserts, "It stirs us up to vigorous resistance against anything that opposes God's glory, our salvation, our real good, or the good of our neighbors. Anger is therefore good when it is used to its appointed end, in the right manner and measure. But anger may be sinful...."

  It is imperative for us to recall though that Scripture incontestably places more of a premium upon humankind refraining from anger (Gen. 4:3-16, Num. 20:10-13, Prov. 15:8, 16:32, 19:11, 22:24-25, 27:4; Eccl.7:9, Matt. 5:21-22, Gal. 5:20, Eph. 4:31, Col. 3:8,21, I Tim. 3:2,3, Tit. 1:7 et al). And this because of our propensity to mishandle it!!

When is anger sinful:  

Credo ut Intelligam