One might almost think that Paul had Hampstead in mind when writing chapter 14 of his Epistle to the Romans; who has not remembered at the last minute to leave the prawns out of a fish pie destined for Jewish neighbours? Who was not shocked at the feeble and desperate attack on the man who is now our Prime Minister for trying to leave Friday evenings free for his family?
The sensitivities -they hardly amount to challenges -of social life in North London are, of course trivial compared to those in areas where poverty is a much greater motivator of fear and resentment. Preventing and remedying that hostility is one of the greatest challenges for us as a nation. A sufficiently harmonious and often respectful coexistence of cultures and religions is possible and happens elsewhere and has done so throughout history. But it is difficult, and, it seems, especially so when Christians are in control of society.
One of the great achievements of the Pax Romana- the internal peace imposed by the Roman empire- was a jigsaw puzzle of different religions which seem to have co-existed more or less harmoniously. It would seem that Christianity was one of only a few religions to cause a stir. The earliest mention of Christianity is a report by Pliny the Younger of the followers of “Chrestos” causing riots in Bithynia. In Rome itself Christians were generally disliked, or feared, enough for Nero to blame them for starting to burn Rome. And Christians’ historical record of intolerance among themselves and to others is mostly rather worse than that of other religions. This is perhaps explained by the church’s own experience of intolerant persecution which is the background to Paul’s letters. This is the troubling and embarrassing background to any talk about tolerance today.
Would, or does, paying deeper attention to Paul in Romans make things better? Paul certainly has a commendably relaxed and yet deferential attitude to dietary and calendar taboos, but elsewhere he is uncompromisingly stern on moral questions which we now (mostly, anyway) consider simply irrelevant. Nevertheless, I think we can make Paul’s argument in chapter 14 work to resolve the serious paradox which religious and cultural differences can raise (even if Paul himself might not have taken them so far).
What we do or do not eat and whether we should work on Saturday are comparatively trivial matters. More fundamental religious toleration and respect raise much more difficult questions; our religious beliefs are deeply held and it’s not easy to respect beliefs that are contradictory or hostile, nor even easy to respect the right of others to hold such beliefs. I confess I have often found that hard and not always succeeded. But respect that right we must and must as part of our own religious belief.
We believe in a God who created and loves us all and that Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection was and is for the benefit of all His creatures. While that love is always there, whether accepted or not, its benefits can only be experienced if freely and willingly acknowledged. To attempt to force it on anyone is to usurp God’s love, so spoiling exactly what we hope to achieve. Our freedom, including our freedom to reject love, and to allow others to do so, is an essential component of our religious experience.
This is the same as Pauls’s argument in Chapter 14. He says that we are all servants of one master; Jesus is of course the master, but the word used for servant or slave is not the normal word for slave but one meaning a member of a household. The household in Paul’s mind is the Christian community and this is where disputes between gentile converts (who had no dietary requirements and no reason to treat Saturdays as different from any other day) might arise with Jewish converts who adhered to the requirements of the Mosaic code. Paul argues, however, that service of the Lord is of paramount importance, and anything which hinders or diminishes that service must be avoided.
To describe that household, Paul uses, for the only time, the phrase “the kingdom of God”, the phrase familiar from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Paul describes it as the kingdom of Justice, Peace and Joy. This household is so precious that nothing must be put in the way of achieving it.
So, although Paul is writing for the close knit Christian community, the implications of his argument, and this express reference to the Kingdom of God, justify us in expanding his thesis beyond that small Christian church. The desire to build a world of Justice, Peace and Joy is not unique to Christianity and Christians are not alone in seeing service of a loving god as the means of achieving that desire and the moral impetus for doing so.
Paul’s belief that service of the Lord brings liberation and life allows us to see the vitality of that service as our motivation and the motivation of others who equally seek the reign of God. And as fellow seekers we can respect the paths they take, even if they do not seem the best to us. Moreover, it makes it clear that we have no right as mere creatures and fellow servants to deny anyone the right to choose their own path. Amen.