Year B
First Sunday after
the Epiphany
Cross~Wind UMC
February 1, 2015
Title: Living Out
Loud with Love
Pre-sermon joke
about food
Comedians Jack Benny and George Burns were
having lunch in a restaurant. Benny, whose wife Mary had put him on a strict
diet that prohibited any butter, agonized aloud for a few minutes about whether
or not to butter his bread. Burns evidently got tired of listening to him
dither and demanded that he “just make this one decision for yourself!”
Benny
buttered his bread and ate it with great satisfaction. When the check came,
Burns told the waiter to give it to Benny, who complained, “Why should I pay?”
“If
you don’t,” Burns replied, “I’ll tell Mary about the butter.”
At first glance, this passage is
about food. The context is one that might make us skip over it because it is
not relevant. However, it will be worthwhile for us to look a little closer. We
are actually going to be talking about the importance for followers of Jesus to
show love in their daily lives.
Going deeper I
Corinthians 8:1-13 (NRSV)
Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: [Yes, that is the theme of this scripture. It
derives from a question raised by the congregation in a letter to him, to which
he refers in 7:1. They are asking Paul for some guidance. Here is a passage that seems as if it would have no
relevance to us today. However, what is important are the principles Paul uses
to handle an issue that has confronted the churches through the centuries. He
will not conclude the discussion until 11:1. Paul spends so much time with it
because of underlying theological issues he sees at work, the notion of
Christian freedom. Christians are free from the Jewish Law, but they are also
free of pagan superstition. In Greek, one word finds translation in the phrase
“food sacrificed to idols.” It refers to meat left over from pagan sacrificed.
The occasion of offering meat to the idol was a social event in which most of
the citizens participated. It was routinely available afterward for sale. This
is the first of four parts in this letter dealing with Christian freedom.
The concern Paul has is with balancing the freedom we have as individuals within
the Body of Christ with our sense of being part of a community of faith.] we know[The
first point Paul is going to make is that we Christians all have knowledge on
which we can agree. What we are going to see is that while they have accurate
knowledge, it does not produce consideration and love. Knowledge is not
absolute.] that “all of us possess knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, [it
generates pride] but love builds up [It
leads to the strengthening of the community].
2 Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the
necessary knowledge;[People who think they know have much more to learn] 3 but anyone who loves God is
known by him. [Here is a rare reference in Paul
to love for God, although one can legitimately see it as a mark of believers.[1] Knowledge must coexist with love.
Knowledge can lead to pride. True knowledge is love of God. He also reminds
them of varying degrees of Christian maturity. Concern for one’s fellow
Christians must temper knowledge. One needs to think less of one’s own knowledge
and freedom and consider what will build up the church. Here is the conclusion
to the first point. While knowledge is important, love the determining factor.]
4
Hence, as to the eating of food
offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists,” and that
“there is no God but one.”[Here is the second point, based on
Isaiah 46 and Deuteronomy 6:4. Here is a fundamental notion of Jewish and
Christian theology. The temples for Greek and Roman gods seemed like an
illusion to these early Christians. However, Paul considers that in the minds
of many worshippers, this is not so.] 5
Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as
in fact there are many gods and many lords— 6 yet for us there is
one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
[The statement is unique in the writings of Paul in
the sense that he seems to distinguish one God “for us” in distinction from
non-Christians. Paul now turns to the role of Christ in creation.
Theologically, here is a significant passage when it comes to a discussion of
who Jesus is. The origin of the Son is from eternity and in God, the
participation of Christ in creation being an example.[2] We should note that such a confession of Christian faith involves
some notion of fellowship between God and Jesus as the Son. It assumes
distinction within the Trinity, even if the third person of the Trinity has no
mention here.[3] No other gods really exist, so why should it matter that this
meat has been part of a sacrifice to another god?
7
It is not everyone, however, who
has this knowledge. [Here is the problem, for everyone does
not share the knowledge that Paul has just expressed.] Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still
think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience,
being weak, is defiled.[The weakness is in giving
moral value to what is morally indifferent. Food does not defile. Rather, their
conscience defiles them. Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of
Pauline Christianity, says the strong were wealthy Christians who could
afford meat, and the weak were the low-born, uneducated, and poor of the
community who did not eat meat often and for whom the experience of eating meat
was probably strange.] 8 “Food
will not bring us close to God.” We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no
better off if we do. [Food was an “indifferent”
category in the popular Greco-Roman ethics of the time (derived mainly from
Stoicism), and Jesus himself taught that “whatever goes into a person from
outside cannot defile ... It is what comes out of a person that defiles” (Mark
7:18-20).] 9 But take
care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to
the weak. [The liberty of some could become an
obstacle to the spiritual growth of others. He makes a similar argument in
Romans 11:9, 14:13, and I Corinthians 1:23. Jesus will give similar advice in
Mark 9:42, Matthew 16:23, and 18:7. Like circumcision in 7:19, eating or
abstaining from sacrificial food is of no consequence to the standing of the
believer before God.] 10 For
if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol,
might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of
eating food sacrificed to idols? [They witnessed
their Christian brothers and sisters dining with non-Christians on food
obviously sacrificed to Demeter, or Zeus, or some other deity. And they saw the
matter differently. Thus the problem for cosmopolitan Christians: Virtually all
meat consumed and offered by non-Christians had been partially offered to some
deity besides the God of Israel. How should a Christian receive hospitality in
the home of a non-Christian? Or how should an upper-class Christian attend any
public banquet, participation in which was a sine qua non of their
social status? The significance of the issue lies only in its effect on other
members of the community. In using an extreme example, if others see those who
possess knowledge eating in the temple of an idol, it will encourage the weak
in conscience to eat food sacrificed to idols.]11 So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ
died are destroyed. 12 But when you thus sin against members of your
family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. [Here
is an expression of the seriousness of the issue. Yes, they sin against each
other, but more importantly, they sin against Christ. The ecclesiology of Paul,
that is, understanding of the church, has its basis in his Christology, that
is, who Christ is. As the risen Lord, Christ is here, in the community and
binding the community together. To act against the community is to act against
Christ. [The strong want to make sure they win. Paul wants to make sure no one
is lost. By their knowledge, those weak believers for
whom Christ died will face spiritual destruction. However, they sin against
members of their family and wound the conscience of the weak, and therefore sin
against Christ.] 13 Therefore,
if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not
cause one of them to fall. [Paul is offering a
strong sense of responsibility for each other. Therefore, if food is a cause of
their falling, Paul himself will never eat meat. He will not cause one of them
to fall. Here Paul enters into the most difficult aspect of his argument,
namely, the advice to some Christians to refrain from exercising their freedom
in Christ in order to prevent other, weaker Christians from sinning.]
In principle, Paul had no objection to eating meat on any
of these occasions as long as one did not participate in the actual cultic meal
to the god, as in 10:20.
Strangely, Paul's voice in this dispute is not the church's
voice for the next several generations. Note the Apostolic Decree in Acts
15:29, Revelation 2:12-17 and 18-29, Didache 6:3, Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, were all against eating meat offered
to idols.
Paul has lifted up
the principle of love that takes precedence over freedom. Love for Christ and
for the body of Christ takes precedence over individual freedom. Leaders have
the responsibility to maintain carefully and deliberately the diversity of the
church. The issue is not diet, but the health of the community. Paul offers
advice and exhortation on how to keep the community together. Here, practice
trumps doctrine and the community outweighs the individual.
Scholars of ancient
rhetoric have classified First Corinthians as an example of a letter
encouraging concord (harmonia) above all else, and the virtue that leads
to concord is not knowledge (gnosis) but love (agape). An example
of this analysis is in Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of
Reconciliation.
Introduction
We find out this passage, while it
sounds like it is about food, becomes something much more than that. Paul makes
a distinction between we know intellectually and contrasts that with what our
hearts ought to tell us.
Paul is confronting the problem of gray areas in the life of the
church. A life wrapped up in itself has wrapped itself in a small package. Such
a person has little use for gray areas, for their opinions trump the opinions
of everyone else. Of course, there are some things that generally are not gray,
as far as Christians teach it. Yet, for Paul, there are vast areas of knowledge
to which we may come that may be fine for us, but we ought not to think apply
to others.
A hundred years ago, one’s
moral/ethical code could probably be encompassed with the popular jingle:
“Don’t drink, don’t dance, don’t chew and don’t go with girls that do.” That
does not play, necessarily, today. But we still have gray areas today. What
would make your list of gray areas?
The first denomination to which I
belonged was the Wesleyan Church. I never gave it any thought, but when I
worked in a church in Chicago, the youth group regularly got together after
Sunday evening worship and went out for pizza and bowling. It was not long
before I heard some of the adults criticize this practice for two reasons. One
was that it was done on Sunday, and the other was that these places served
alcohol. I had not come from a background that emphasized such matters, so I
was puzzled.
Application
First, I want to
suggest to you the importance of heart knowledge.
Carl Jung, the great
psychologist, traveled to America and visited with a Taos Pueblo medicine
man. The Indian said he thought white
people were crazy. Jung asked why. "They say they think with their
heads," said the Indian. Jung said
that was true. With what did he
think. "We think here," as he
pointed to his heart.
Yet, with all the
demands of the mind, I want us to focus on a different type of knowledge. I want to draw your attention to the
knowledge of the heart.
Abraham Lincoln was
convinced he was right. The union needed
to be preserved. Slavery was wrong. It led to the war that to this day killed
more Americans than any other war in our history. Yet, the story is told that someone came to
him and joyfully told him that three hundred confederate soldiers had perished
in battle. He wept. The one who told him asked him why. Lincoln is reported to have said, "Sir,
you have a very small heart." We
are called to have a heart as large as the heart of God. That is heart knowledge.
Second, What you have in your heart will determine how you look at the world.
If you the love of God and love for
each other, and love for the people of this world, you will look at the world
differently.
I think C. S. Lewis put all of this
in a challenging way.
If
anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is
quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all
sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual. The pleasure of putting
other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and
backbitting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside
me competing with the human self which I must try to become; they are the
animal self, and the diabolical self; and the diabolical self is the worst of
the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig (prude, killjoy), who goes
regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course,
it’s better to be neither. —C. S. Lewis.
Third, Love
rules in heart knowledge
Some years ago, in India, there was
a famous guru giving a talk to thousands of people. In the crowd were holy men,
presidents, film stars, musicians and many, many others. Apparently when this
man talked, his voice was kind of “hypnotic” and people became entranced by his
words. When he had
finished speaking, the guru asked if there were any further questions. There
was a silence as people absorbed what they had just heard until a man stood up.
He was a business type, a Western, skeptical man and half-laughing he said to
the guru, “All right then, if you know everything, what’s the meaning of life?”
The man was
trying to embarrass the guru, to kind of belittle him. But, the guru answered,
“I’ll answer your question, but first let me tell you something about
yourself.” Now the man was the one that everyone was looking at and
became uncomfortable. “You have never been in love, have you? Real, deep, true
love?” “No,” replied the man, now slightly embarrassed himself, “No, I
haven’t.” “Because ...” said the guru, “... a person who asks the question that
you asked me, about the ‘meaning of life’, is really only telling you something
about themselves. They have missed out on, or not experienced ... love.
Basically, a person who knew real Love, from their own direct, personal
experience, would never even be able to ask the question, ‘What is the meaning
of life,’ because they would already know.”
Conclusion
HEART KNOWLEDGE BUILDS UP ONE ANOTHER.
HEAD KNOWLEDGE TEARS DOWN. A poem
I came across states this so well:
You know, Lord, how I
serve you
with great emotional
fervor
in the limelight.
You know how eagerly I
speak for you
at a women's club.
You know how I
effervesce when I promote
a fellowship group.
You know my genuine
enthusiasm
at a Bible study.
But how would I react,
I wonder,
if you pointed to a
basin of water
and asked me to wash
the calloused feet
of a bent and wrinkled
old woman,
day after day,
month after month,
in a room where nobody
saw
and nobody knew?
--Ruth Harms Calkin
No comments:
Post a Comment