pe ——“Conseience and Communi ty
Romans 14:13~23
May 3, 1970

It was really a rather minor issue. If you were a Christian in firet century
Rome, the meat you bought in the market place was, in all probability , the meat
of a sacrificial animal slaughtered in a pagan temple. For Jewish Christians
the prospect of eating such meat was particularly painful given their heri tage
of dietary laws. For the Gentile it was simply a question of patronizing
paganism in a second hand manner; an issue somewhat related to the practice,
today, of refusing to buy products made in certain countries. In any case,
many early Christians chose to resolve the issue by not buying their meat, which
in Rome meant almost all meat, They were, for all practical purposes, vegetarians.
Typically they were not of one mind on this issue and they argued with one another
on the appropriate and correct position. ‘Some abstained from meat eating altogether,
while others failed to see any ethical problem at all in the situation. ‘The
abstainers called them libertines: the meat eaters called the abstainers "stuffed-
shirts" no doubt. It all has a very familiar sound to it: it is a good example
of the way religious moralities often crumble when encountering the complexities
and ambiguities of every day life. I+ is an even better example of how religious
people can be very intolerant people: how one's personal convictions have a way
of becoming universal and infallible.

Thus the problem Paul addressed in the New Testament lesson this morning:
on the surface, very minor ~— only a matter of whether or not to eat meat that
had once been a pagan sacrifice. But within it there are three major ethical
questions which still try our consciences: ‘three questions as contemporary as
the Vietnam war; three questions which still are part of the never ending
quest for the faithful Christian life.

The three areas of concern are these: the old issue of clean us unclean,

i.e. are some things, acts, people, places inherently bad? The invieélability of
the human conscience, tee. what do you do when men of good will disagree: and

a A a a as a di tn a = a = uel

-2-

finally, the ethic of love which motivates men to care as much for 6
brother as they care for themselves, i.e. should you do something which is
not bad, if your doing it will cause unhappiness for your neighbor?

All three are very mch “live issues" today. All three have a great deal
to do with the Church of Jesus Christ. Let's look at them one at a time.

The concept of “uncleanness" iz very old. ‘The Old Testament devotes a
considerable amount of space to it, as do all ancient moral and religious
writings. The survival of the tribal group in the ancient world depended on
the exclusion of alien and, therefore, potentially dangerous elements. livery
early culture develpped a aystem of "taboos" which clearly defined certain
foods, places, persons, acts and objects as unclean, unfit, wrong and immoral.
Some "taboos" were based on correct assumptions. That is to say, the taboos
often reflected very good sense and proper medical diagnosis. On the other
hand anything which hinted at the supernatural, any intanse human experience ~
including sex end death ~ was usually considered unclean. Anything repulsive
or even different was suspect: ‘thus 4 man with a blemish could not be a priest.

Eating the flesh of the pig, or swine, was taboo for the Israelites for
two reasons. The first was that a lot of people probably got sick from pork
not thoroughly cooked. The second is that the pig was a favorite sacrificial
animal of the Canaanites when they oo-habited the land with the Israelites.
Many of Israel's taboos ~ and moh of the concept of uncleanness derived from
these two general sources: common sense and religious expression.

As religion becomes more sophisticated, however, cultural taboos gradually
come to be sean as the will of the deity. ‘Thus in the Old Testament unclean-
ness is desoribed as "an abomination to the Lord." As religion evolves the
priests, or holy men, harmonize the customs and taboos, turn them into religious
laws and then invent a theological rationale.

-+

That, in fact, was the situation with the Jewish nations. It is the
historical foundation for well meaning people getting concerned about eating
meat which might, somehow, be called unclean.

Paul clearly came down on the side of the liberals. He wrote: "I am
absolutely sure, as a Christian, that nothing is impure in itself." Paul saw
what many religious people do not see; that the creation is good, that things
are good, food and the body and human experience and feelings: that nothing
in oreation is inherently evil. Paul saw that in Jesus Christ 2 man could
forget about all the religious laws which provided o mechanism for producing
God's favor, and simply celebrate the fact that God's love has been expressed
in him.

Let's think about that for a minute. An appallingly large percentage of
the religious and moral systems in Mestern civilization have been built on
the assumption that there is something wrong with the body, pleasant feelings,
the carnal, the senuous; and that it is always better, morally, to feel bad
than it is to feel good.

The firesks taught that reality was two separate realms: spirit and matter,
and that spirit was by far the better of the two, Early Christians, heavily
influenced by the Greeks, were oalled Gnostios, and taught that man himself was
a dichotomy between mind and body. As a natural corallary the body was finite,
evil, while the mind was on a higher plane altogether. Life, for the Gnostic,
was a matter of denying the body, escaping the body, sometimes mtilating the
body. Man's mind was where he really lived - or should live as moh as possible,

Now, that is very contrary to the Old Testament which views man as @
unity, and also the New Testament. And yet it appears that this Greek idea
has been far more influential in informing Christian Fthics than either
Testament, St. Paul or Jesus Christ.

St. Auguetine, who in his early years was quite a "rounder" taught that
@ man, or woman, was far better morally if he did not enjoy sex. The monks
pushed it further and denied themselves food, companionship and any bodily

—— a

~ cnt

~4-

comfort whatever. The Puritains took a very dim view of anything which seemed
like fun. And today people are still horrified when a minister appears to be
actually enjoying life. Our recently retired brother across the river did a
lot of thinga that irritated a lot of people. But the worst was to write
letters to the editor of Playboy magazine. That - is the unpardonable sin
because one of the major premises of that particular magazine is that humon
semality is a pretty good thing.

We betray our latent gnocticiem when we say “I have a body", which means
that the real me is inside somewhere: the heart, mind, soul, spirit - and
this is just the wrapper for the real product. |

We betray our gnosticism in our religion ~ in our worship — by being so
cerebral that church is about the most unexciting - umfun place a person can be,

St. Paul should have cleared the air when he unequivocally declared that
nothing is evil in itself. But the air, wnfortunately, is not at all clear,
and you and I need to be reminded continually that fod's creation is good, and
that to enjoy ~ to feel and experience and thrive in the fact that we can
emell and touch and taste and hear and see is, in fact, to "glorify God",
and - in fact, "to enjoy him forever".

But, for Paul, it was an ideal and not an ebsolute moral imperative. If
a man felt good about not eating meat that feeling mist be honored. On one
level that means that Christians mst tolerate different opinions. On the
deeper leve)]. it means that the individual conscience is the only ultimate,
sacred standard of conduct.

That's a basic Presbyterian Préaciple. It has almost been a basic American
principle. ‘The trouble is that the sancity of the individual conscience is
a very nice sounding concept wntil an individual begins to exercise it in
opposition to the majority or the power structure in a way that is judgmental,
threatening or simply offensive. That is to say, it's one thing to stand for
religious freedom ~ but it's another thing to grant that freedom to an avowed
atheist like Madalyn Murray O'Hara. Its one thing to abstain from eating meat

hail conti a a a

2

=

on Priday as a matter of conscience ~ but it's another thing altogether to seek
a Conscientious Objector!s status because of convictions about e particular war.

That's wheme the issue is being fought today. That's where the integrity
and rightness of the American system is on trial. And that's where the Churches
of Jeous Ohriet are persistantly demonstrating that they've never heard of the
New Testament. ‘There's really no question where the Church ought to be on this
issue. Thousands of young men are saying "I cannot fight in thie war. I
cannot killlenother human being for a cause I feel is unjust. My conscience
won't allow me." ‘Thousands are saying that ~ many, if not most of them, because
the Church has touched their lives and taught them something about the value
of all life and the importence of their ow integrity.

We may not agree with them. We may take strenuous exoeption to their analysis
of what is happening in Southeast Asia and why, But that's not the point. That's
not the real issue any more than whether or not pagan meat was: clean was the
iesue in first century Rome. Paul wrote: "If you have a clear conviction, apply
it to yourself im the sight of God. Happy is the man who can make his decision
with a clear conscience." Romane 14122

As a Church we must be prepared to stand with those who conscientiously
object to thie war. As individuals, if we are to be honest with our faith, we
must be prepared to defend the sanctity of their conscience - regardless of
our opinion, and regardless of the consequences.

That's a difficult position to be in today, and it will continue to be
difficult, but it is the Christian position.

Finally Paul takes the whole jssue and places it in the context of the
Christian Commnity. ‘Talking to the strong Christians, the secure men, the
ones who know that eating or noteeating meat has nothing to do with the Gospel,
he says in effect: “even though your faith frees you to do something, don't
do it if it is harmful to your brother." That is to say, “people are more
important than principles": your neighbor's welfare - hie happiness, his

security and worthfulness are the real moral objectives in the Christian commnity.

There is a word here for the Church, We are a brotherhood. We are responsible
for each other and to each other. When a man joins a Church he becomes part of
a community. He commits himself to all the other persons who belong to the
Chruch, and to whom he now belongs. That is how Paul saw it, so much so that he
advised abstaining from meat - if another man wauld be injured by that act.

And yet that unity - that oneness and mtual interdependance is quite remote
from the experience of the Church today. People belong to the Church without
really knowing the Church ~ that is — the people who are the Chruch. People
relate to the Church as if it were a faceless institution, when in fact, the
Church is only the people who belong to it,

Somehow we've got to recover that, We must be reminded who we are: we
must begin, all of us, to see ourselves as part of the commmity, dependent on
others, dependable to others.

I spent a lot of time last week talking and arguing with = man who is about
to leave the ministry in order to be a full-time revolutionary. We talked about
the matter from all possible directions, but the one that bothered me most had
to do with the spirit of commmity and oneness. He was opting for the revolu~
tionary movement because he had discovered 4 fellowship there, 2 Kiononis, and
interdependence among people, ® love and commitment to each other, that he had
naver experienced in the Church, That's a tragedy. And yet he was right - the
Church has forgotten what it is.

We've got to rediscover that. People like you and me have to discover
each other and reclaim our identity as brothers in Jesus Christ, We' vergot
to see anew that miracle that Paul had witnessed ~ namely the unifying,
redeeming, renewing love of Jesus Christ at work in a group of Christians.

Let we pray for that. Let us work for that.
Amen.

Our Father we are grateful for your gifts: for our senses by which we perceive
the world and each other: for our dignity and worth claimed by Jesus Christ

* " ~ a w

your Son and for the fellowship of your Church. Help us our Father to grow ee
ss together in the ewer of your lloly Spirit. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. we