7 minute read
Accept One Another
By James Driedger
ISTOCK
The apostle Paul figured he could be expression itself reveals that this group had sav“all things to all people” (1 Cor. 9:22). ing faith even if it was deficient. We should not So, who is Paul for the EM Conferview this, therefore, as a Christian/non-Chrisence today and in its mission to advance Christ’s tian divide; it speaks of an in-house divide, as it kingdom culture? were, that Paul did not view as essential to the
I want to suggest that Paul is our mediaintegrity of this Christian community. tor, and that he is so through his appeal to the What were these Christian’s divided over? church in Rome to “accept one another” (Rom. There were two matters: (1) the “weak” ate only 15:7). While this phrase was written to mobilize vegetables, probably to avoid food sacrificed to the support of the fractioning church in Rome, idols, while the “strong” ate all food (14:2, 21); that Paul might have a base from which to conand (2) the “weak” valued one day in the week tinue his work in Spain, I believe that through the Spirit One of the greater challenges above the others, while the “strong” made no distinction of God it is a phrase for us. To grasp the meaning of for early Christianity centred between days (14:5). One of the greater chalPaul’s words “welcome one another,” we must rewind to around the relationship lenges for early Christianity centred around the relationchapter 14, where he writes: “As for the one who is weak in between Jewish and Gentile ship between Jewish and Gentile Christians as it perfaith, welcome him” (14:1). By calling a group within Christians as it pertained to tained to the relevance of the Law. The “weak” in our the church — that in time he will refer to as the “strong” the relevance of the Law. passage were likely Jewish Christians who abstained (15:1) — to welcome those from non-kosher foods and who are “weak,” Paul reveals a fractured church. observed the Sabbath. They had trusted in Jesus And the question is: “What were they divided as Messiah, but were unable to accept that in over?” Were they divided on matters essential or Christ certain practices, that for so long had non-essential to the Christian faith? defined them as the people of God, were no lonDescribing One Party How does Paul seek to mend this division To begin, we must not fail to recognize that Paul over non-essential matters? refers to one party as those “weak in faith.” The ger binding.
Mutual Acceptance He begins by countering the mutual judgment that defined this community with a call for mutual acceptance. “Let not the one who eats [the “strong”] despise the one who abstains [the “weak”], and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him” (14:3). Paul is cognizant that those with more freedom in Christ have the tendency of looking down upon those with less freedom as legalists, while those with less freedom often view themselves as the righteous remnant who have resisted compromise unlike those others. Paul finds this unacceptable.
When we judge someone’s faith over a matter that we disagree on, but that is not essential to Christianity and its moral vision, we set ourselves up against God who has already welcomed that person. To be sure, Paul is not calling for total tolerance, but he is calling for tolerance within the confines of the faith.
Godly Motivation Paul’s second argument stresses the importance of godly motivation. Undermining the significance of any day or diet, he writes: “The one who observes the day, observes it in honour of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honour of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honour of the Lord” (14:6). The reason why someone eats
something or esteems a day as holy, for Paul, is more important than the practice itself.
He does not say that any action one can think of is now permissible as long as they claim right motives; but in matters not antithetical to the gospel, Paul will tolerate diversity as long as people live to honour God. And in this divide, he is sure that both parties “live to the Lord” (14:7).
Paul directs his final argument to the “strong,” instructing them to not “put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother or sister;” if they do, they are “no longer walking in love.” (14:13, 15). Those who are “strong” are not to jeopardize the faith of the “weak,” by pushing them to do (or not do) something that they view at odds with their faith, as this often results in disillusionment and (at worst) the destruction of their faith.
Paul believes that there is something more important than one’s liberty in Christ—namely, the building-up of the church. Paul would always have you seek the good of your church over your personal freedom. This is not to say that one must change their convictions and practices per se; but they should be filtered through a does-this-build-up-thechurch? grid.
The Way of Christ For Paul, this is the way of Christ. “We who are
strong, have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak… Because Christ did not please himself’” (15:1, 3). That Paul would draw a comparison between Christ’s sacrifice and the duty of the “strong” to change their diet may appear unwarranted, but it is intended to jolt the reader. If Christ was willing to lay down his life for those who are “weak,” will the “strong” not make these lesser sacrifices? It is without question a significant and neces
Paul closes by praying that God would sary discussion and it cannot be fully separated grant this church to “live in such harmony with from the gospel’s implications (which are surely one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that essential), but the matter never makes it into together you may with one voice glorify God” Paul’s core statements about the gospel. It is (15:5-6). never listed in those vice-catalogues deemed
Notice that Paul prays that they would live antithetical to the gospel and finds no menin harmony with one another. What does harPaul closes by praying that God tion in the Church’s early creeds. mony imply? It implies the absence of unison. would grant this church to “live in I’m aware that rigorous discussion is a prerequiWhen Paul prays for unity, he expects a measure of such harmony with one another, in site before we can agree on what constitutes an diversity to remain; yet Paul believes that “with accord with Christ Jesus, that together essential of our faith, but my conviction is that Paul one voice” this church can still glorify God. you may with one voice glorify God” would be disheartened if we were unable to move Coming Months mony—not uniformity—on this matter.
I invite you to welcome Paul the mediator to Listening to Paul our mediator, therefore, let guide us as a conference in the coming months. us refrain from criticizing those whom Christ There are matters that we disagree on that have has already accepted; let us recognize the wholethe potential of threatening our harmony in hearted faith of many with whom we disagree, advancing Christ’s kingdom culture. and let us consider the benefit of our confer
To, semi-reluctantly, speak to the elephant ence above our individual in the room: we are divided on whether women preferences. may serve as pastors in our conference. While, in the direction of harat this time, I identify as a soft-complementarian James Driedger (MDiv, (though admittedly, I find this term and egalitarPTS) is an associate pastor ian unhelpful and a barrier in this discussion), at Blumenort Community I would like to suggest that this divide is over a Church. He lives in Steinbach matter non-essential to our faith. with his wife and two sons.
