Sunday, February 1, 2015

Placing love of neighbor above personal freedom

Sermon delivered Sunday, Feb. 1, 2015 (4th Sunday After the Epiphany, Year B), at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Franklin, TN.

1 Corinthians 8:1-13

In our second reading today, the apostle Paul is advising the church at Corinth about whether or not Christians should eat food sacrificed at the temples of other gods.

This was an issue of some controversy to the church in Corinth, a Greek city composed mostly of Gentiles who worshipped the traditional Greek deities like Zeus and Hera. When Gentiles became Christians, they were taught to stop worshipping those Greek deities and to worship only the Jewish God, who Christians believed had become incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ. One of the ways they had worshipped at the Greek temples was to eat the meat that had been sacrificed to those gods, so many of the new converts were abstaining from that meat after they became Christian.

But some Christians insisted that it was ok to continue to eat the meat that had been sacrificed in the Greek temples because the Greek gods did not exist anyway, so eating meat that had been sacrificed to them was harmless. It was probably an inconvenient hassle in that society to avoid meat sacrificed at the Greek temples, since much of the meat sold in the public market would have come from that source. Rather than having to go to great lengths to avoid it, some members of the church reasoned that it was not actually a problem to eat it after all.

Paul writes to address this conflict and to advise the community on how to stay in relationship with one another despite their disagreements. Although Paul agrees in principle with those who insist that it is harmless to eat the meat from the Greek temples, he calls them to abstain from doing so if it causes harm to their fellow Christians’ faith. He encourages them to be willing to inconvenience themselves by voluntarily giving up a behavior that is harmless to them for the sake of their neighbors, to give love of neighbor a higher priority than the exercise of personal freedom.

Earlier in this first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, there is a summary of this point in chapter 6, verse 12: “All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial” (1 Corinthians 6:12). Although we may have the freedom in Christ to know that we will be forgiven of our sins no matter what we do, the command for us to love our neighbor as ourselves demands that we consider how our actions will affect other people, and limit our freedom accordingly.

This tension between personal freedom and responsibility to the common good comes up in secular terms in our discussions of the right to free speech. In general, though we pride ourselves on “freedom of speech” in this country, the courts have generally upheld the idea that that does NOT give one the right to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater if there is not in fact a fire. It may be technically permissible to do so, but it is not beneficial to the common good and safety of those gathered to create a situation where people would panic and perhaps hurt one another in their haste to leave the theater. Thus, even though it is permissible for Christians to eat the meat sacrificed to the Greek gods, it may not be beneficial to the greater community of the church for them to do so.

Paul refers to those who are likely to be led astray by seeing other Christians eat meat in the Greek temples as “weaker” Christians, and although this term carries with it a judgment call about who is “right” and “wrong” in this argument, his point is that in order to most fully reflect God’s love, we must always consider the weakest or most vulnerable members among us and how our actions will affect them. There is a well-known saying that the greatness of a society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable members, and that is certainly true about the body of Christ. Paul encourages us to always be aware of the lowest common denominator, of the most inclusive course of action possible to keep the most people together at the table.

This call to inclusivity and awareness of our most vulnerable members may mean that we are asked to voluntarily give up something we enjoy doing or to change our behavior in a way that perhaps we would prefer not to do, out of consideration for others. B.W. Johnson, a late 19th century Church of Christ pastor and professor, said this in his commentary on this passage from 1 Corinthians:

“The Christian principle, the rule of love, is, ‘If eating meat, or going to the theatre, or going to a ball, or attending the fair, or drinking wine or beer, causeth my brother to offend, I will not do these things while the world standeth.”

Now, we may think that sounds like an extreme statement, and in general, we in the Episcopal Church tend to pride ourselves on the fact that we allow and even celebrate many things that other Christian communities frown upon – whether that be going to a ball, or attending the fair, or drinking wine or beer. But sometimes, the emphasis we place on the freedom we have in our actions in this church can take such a priority that we can forget to consider the effects of our actions on others. We can sometimes act in accordance with the secular principle of celebrating our right to do whatever we want rather than in accordance with the Christian principle of placing love of neighbor and our responsibility to the community above our own wants and desires.

To put a little flesh on this concept with a specific example, I would suggest that one of the areas where this plays out in the Episcopal Church is in our attitude toward the use of alcohol. Now, I know this can be a touchy subject, but I assure you that it is probably a fairly good parallel to how touchy the subject of eating food from the Greek temples would have been to our brothers and sisters in the first century A.D., so let’s think about it carefully for a little bit.

Many of us appreciate the fact that the Episcopal Church is not as “uptight” as some other denominations in its approach to alcohol. In fact, that accepting view of alcohol use is even part of the reason some of us chose this church as adults. We appreciate the fact that this is a place where having a glass of wine is not looked upon as a sin. We know that even in those denominations where drinking is forbidden, members often do so in secret and feel shamed about it, so we reason that if people are going to drink, at least in our church it can be done in the open and without shame, and thus hopefully in a more moderate and healthy manner. But in certain contexts in the Episcopal Church, from church functions to seminary parties, I have seen drinking taken to excess, and this kind of behavior laughed about and even encouraged. We all know the jokes about alcohol and the Episcopal Church – whether it’s the reference to us as “Whisky-palians” or the joke that “wherever there are four Episcopalians, there’s a fifth.” I’ve laughed at these jokes as much as the next person, but when I take a step back and really think about it, I find this levity toward excessive drinking to be somewhat disturbing in light of the issue Paul raises in today’s passage from 1 Corinthians. Are we causing our brothers and sisters to stumble by our attitudes in this area? How are we caring for our most vulnerable members, those in our midst who struggle with addiction to alcohol?

Certainly people with addictions are ultimately responsible for making their own choices to abstain, but remember what Paul said to the church at Corinth. “If food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.” I doubt Paul became a vegetarian for the rest of his life as a result of this issue, but even so, his rhetorical point should give us pause. If alcohol is a cause of our brother or sister’s falling, should we not consider more carefully how we approach it within our Christian community together? Heaven forbid that the church should be the place where someone is led to a relapse of their addiction, but it could happen.

People who don’t currently have problems with alcohol may resent this call to restraint or consideration, protesting that it is unnecessary for them, but if we are to take the Scripture seriously, this passage encourages us to be willing to limit our freedoms based on love of neighbor, to be willing to alter our behavior in ways that may be unnecessary for us in order to more fully include and welcome our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I’m not suggesting that we all give up drinking, necessarily, but that we be more intentional and aware of the effects drinking can have on others, and of the way we talk about and present our drinking in the church. And it’s not my intention to unfairly pick on alcohol – there are certainly many other topics we could consider from this perspective. Interfaith dialogue is one of them. For some Christians, seeing Christian leaders participate in prayer and worship with people of other faiths can be a stumbling block to their faith, and this is certainly an area where one could call me to be more considerate and careful toward others as I engage in interfaith work in the church. So this sermon is not intended to be a moralistic condemnation of all alcohol consumption, but simply a call for us to be more thoughtful and considerate of the effects of our actions on others in all areas of our lives.

During this season of Epiphany, we are called to consider the ways in which Christ was made known in his day – the historical events and miracles that revealed his identity as the Son of God – and also to consider the ways Christ is made known today through our lives and witness. At the end of the service, we pray in the Epiphany blessing that Christ the Son of God may be manifest in you, that your lives may be a light to the world. During the rest of this season, take time to examine some of your actions and choices in light of how they affect those around you. Ask yourself, “What does this action manifest in my life? Does it make Christ more fully known to those around me?” Even if the behavior is something you think is harmless, consider whether it might make your neighbor stumble in their faith, and if that is a possibility, think twice before you do it.