Romans 14. 1-17
It’s difficult to get one’s head round St Paul; I don’t mean so much his essential theology, which, however feebly grasped, is always challenging and inspiring. What I find puzzling is his swings between, on the one hand the poetic and profound or the sensible, practical, sympathetic advice we heard in our lesson this evening and on the other hand the absurdly prejudiced rants that occur elsewhere. Perhaps he should just be allowed his good and bad days, like the rest of us, but I think it is worth trying to explore this a little further.
We can imagine the circumstances in metropolitan Rome-where Christianity was spreading and growing as an offshoot of an ancient, sophisticated but mostly exclusive religion, among many other new cults and an established religion, which was part of the structure of society, but otherwise with little moral content. Perhaps harder for us to understand was the prevalence of superstition particularly at a popular level; the ephemeral detritus of the classical world exposed by archaeologists reveals an obsession with curses and fortune telling. More loftily in Paul’s own writing we encounter a variety of extra-terrestrial powers making a brief but forceful appearance. This was a society where what you ate might matter and whether you chose this day or that for some enterprise what not just a joke. In the foreground too, for early Christians, were the Jewish dietary rules and Sabbath keeping which distinguished and defined that community. These were the topical questions, and the nub was the extent to which gentile Christians should be identifying themselves as Jews too.
Paul’s teaching is moving example of how practical love can work in action. If we love our neighbour we must respect his views; we have all been welcomed into the Church and we are all servants and children of God, and should work together to do God’s will, each of us answerable to God not to each other. So if someone honestly thinks he should be vegetarian or not work on Saturday or Sunday, who are we, who think differently, to say we are better Christians?
This attractive philosophy has an obvious contemporary relevance. How much better would the Anglican Church be, if this ethic could be taken to heart? So many of our woes are the result of a failure to put love into action in this way.
But I am bothered that the author of this uplifting teaching could also, for example, rage about whether women should cover their heads in church. Here is an edited version of what he says to the Corinthians (it’s a passage which understandably, we do not hear read often!)
Any man who prays with his head covered dishonours his head, 5 but any woman who prays with her head unveiled dishonours her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
Should we bothered that Paul is putting forward some Beta minus arguments consisting of non sequiturs and doubtful premises, with passion on a question that seems to us to have no moral significance whatsoever?
Is it the moral content which allows Paul to distinguish these questions? It could be that he does not regard, for example, vegetarianism as a matter of morality- most vegetarians would, of course, disagree, with justification. But can Paul really think the length of hair and whether heads are covered or not are matters of morality?
I have mentioned hair length and head covering but the same arguments would apply to more serious matters such as the position of women or homosexuality. The consequences of prejudice in these matters is rather more serious, indeed catastrophic, and in my view Paul’s reasoning is equally feeble; if these questions have any moral content at all it is based only on custom and tradition, those last ditch grounds for defending what is usually indefensible
Paul, however, is reasoning here, from his understanding of the relation between God and man, and man and women. His world is a well-oiled machine. He uses the metaphor of a human body in which each limb and organ has its fixed place and function. That imagery has its uses, and the extended idea of the Church as Christ’s body on earth is undeniably powerful. But it is only a metaphor; Paul allows the imagery to argue for reality. That one can see the church, or society, or the world in this way does not mean that is the only way the church, society or the world could or should be.
Does this inconsistency, even hypocrisy, in Paul matter? Does the fact that he is wrong about one question need to taint his teaching on more important matters? I think not.
These contrasting passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians, are a healthy warning to us. With the Corinthians Paul has adopted just the intolerance which he warns against in Romans. He is not allowing people to have differing opinions. He would say, of course, that what you eat and what you do on the Sabbath are fundamentally unimportant questions, unlike questions about hair and veils, the position of women and attitude to homosexuality. The difference was that food and the Sabbath had close and more obvious links with Judaism and it mattered to Paul that they should not matter, that they should not be seen as in anyway vital to being a Christian.
It need not need not matter to us, what mattered then, for Paul in the First Century, nor in other centuries or places, but despite his inconsistencies and on occasion his lack of reason, Paul still has much with which to inspire us and we should not allow his failings to diminish the value of his interpretation of the Gospel; illogical conclusions do not invalidate a premise. And, of course, we not need to believe every word which Paul wrote. We should, however, be warned by how easy it is to slip into prejudice and intolerance. Amen