"Differences Don't Mean Divisions"

Romans 15:1-3

I recall a long-ago family conversation that revolved around ethics and morality.  Jan's father made us all laugh when he summed up his position with a humorous expression.  He said, "Good is better than bad, because it's nicer."  His comment reminds me of the little girl who once prayed, "God, please make the bad people good and the good people nice."  Well, a cursory reading of this passage from Romans sounds like Paul is saying to the congregation:  "Now Y'all be nice to each other!"  Yet, as is so often the case with Paul, the context illuminates the meaning. This seemingly innocent passage—once we know the context—actually bristles with tension.

The tension in question involves a quarrel that has erupted among the Christians in Rome.  A difference of opinion is dividing the congregation. The issue has to do with attitudes toward food, and the need to set aside particular days for religious observance. Two divergent orientations surfaced in the congregation.  One group felt no obligation whatsoever to follow a restrictive diet or to keep certain days. Paul labels this group "the strong." Not surprisingly, "the strong" are those who agree with Paul.  More to the point, "the strong" are those who, like Paul, trust implicitly in the sufficiency of God's grace in Christ and thus seek no further justification for establishing a relationship with God. They share Paul's view that observance of particular days and regulations regarding particular foods, while biblically basesd, depend on notions that are no longer valid.

But other Christians in Rome approached these matters differently. Paul calls them "the weak," even though I doubt they would be pleased at being described in this manner. They believe in Christ as God's Messiah, but they also believe that certain religious practices remain valid and necessary for Christians.  After all, they surely argued, scripture itself clearly sets forth which foods are clean and which are unclean, as well as prescribing certain days for various ritual observances. These Christians insist on the continuance of these biblical practices. Such was the tension among the Christians in Rome, and it had the potential of dividing the church.   

Now it is precisely this difference of opinion that Paul addresses in the section of his letter that we read this morning.  Notice how Paul puts the conflict in a theological framework. That is, he sets this conflict within the bigger picture of God's reconciling work in Christ. He reminds the congregation of the character of God revealed in Christ Jesus.  Paul points out that Christ did not try to please himself, but always aimed at the well-being of the other. Then, quoting from the Psalms and Isaiah, Paul briefly rehearses the story of how, in Christ, God has opened the door of God's favor to Gentiles, enlarged God's family and embraced sinners.  If God has forgiven, welcomed and included Jew and Gentile, slave and free, strong and weak, male and female, shouldn't God's willingness to be reconciled to us guide our relations with one another?  We can hear Paul pleading with the congregation:  In Christ, we all belong together, so don't let differences of opinion destroy the unity God has given us. What foods we eat or refrain from eating just aren't all that important. What's important, Paul insists, is that we live in harmony with one another, and handle our differences graciously. While Paul believes that the so-called strong have the more correct theological understanding, he encourages them to lighten up, give some ground, respect those who think differently.  "Welcome one another," he says, "and live together in harmony."

Still, we have to be careful not to generalize.  Paul's advice to the Romans concerning food issues can't be made into a universal principle.  In other places—in different contexts—Paul is unwilling to compromise. For example, at Antioch, Paul refused Peter's and James' request that he withdraw from eating with Gentiles. In this instance, Paul was resolute.  He openly opposed the position of Peter and James, because he believed the truth of the Gospel to be at stake. Likewise, Paul was not prepared to compromise on circumcision, even though his position offended many conservative Jewish Christians.  On the matter of circumcision, Paul stood firm because he believed that to accommodate on this matter would be a denial of God's grace and a return to religion based on law and ethnic identity.  In short, Paul's counsel regarding differences varied, depending on the context and the nature of the issue at hand.

And as we all know throughout the history of the church, disagreements have been a constant.  During the Protestant Reformation there were constant tensions over what forms of worship to keep and what to dispense with. For example, when turmoil erupted in one Reformed congregation over whether or not such things as candles and chasubles were allowed in Reformed worship, John Calvin sent a letter to the church leaders encouraging them to accommodate to the tastes of the people for the sake of unity.  Calvin wrote, "It is perfectly lawful for the children of God to submit to many things of which they do not approve…let us lay it down as a settled point, that we ought to make mutual concessions in all ceremonies, that do not involve any prejudice to the confession of our faith, and for this end that the unity of the church be not destroyed…"  Clearly Calvin regarded such disagreements over styles of worship in the same spirit Paul addressed dietary restrictions. That is, these are matters over which there might well be differences of opinion, but they ought to be handled with deference to one another and without threatening the unity of the congregation.

But of course, other issues might not be so straightforward.  Think back over the past fifty years or so, and bring to mind the issues that have been so divisive in the church.  Ordination of women, abortion, and, in recent decades, ordination of gay and lesbian persons. To some of us, these issues should be handled in the same spirit with which Paul handles the issue of food in Romans.  Namely, that the unity of the church is the highest value, and there should be room for give-and-take on the different opinions held. Others, though, view one or all of these issues more in the way Paul viewed circumcision—the principle is so important that no compromise is possible.  What's clear from Paul is that there is no rock-solid, universal standard that can apply to every tension within the church.  Rather, in every case, we have the burden of discernment. What is universal, though, is that whatever the issue we behave toward one another knowing that in Christ we belong together, and—looking to the example of Christ—we do our best to love and serve one another, even those with whom we disagree.

Friends, it is such a hopeful thing when congregations such as our handle difference graciously.  I know that Paul says that hope is unseen.  Its fulfillment lies in the future.  But hope is grounded in the present.  When Christian communities practice forgiveness, demonstrate hospitality, show forbearance even in disagreement, we offer the world a sign of hope.  When others can see God's dream of a reconciled human family already taking shape…that's when hope abounds!