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).