1 Corinthians 8:1-13
Epiphany 4 - Year B
All things being equal ... is one of the things that keeps getting left out.
All things being equal it is good to be considerate of those who are "weaker."
When we leave out the "all things being equal" part we begin to set up rules that simply won't work over the long haul.
It's like saying one should always be tolerant. However, when intolerance is acting out, that can't be tolerated.
The NRSV ends by saying, "Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall."
How would that sound if we substituted "creedal orthodoxy" for "food"? "Therefore, if creedal orthodoxy is a cause of their falling, I will never think or experience anything beyond what has been thought or experienced before, so that I may not cause one of them to fall." I suspect that neither Paul or Jesus would be pleased with that.
So, how do we get behind the scene here to something larger. It may be that we will have to settle for something far smaller - simply remembering we all have our history and biases and we need to care for both the weaker and the stronger. I will do what I can to not cause a weaker to stumble and I will do what I can to not hold back a stronger.
I find I am troubled by the weaker/stronger pairing. I'm OK with it in terms of my life with weaker and stronger parts, but it really doesn't help when comparing myself and another. Parts of me are weaker than parts of them and parts are stronger. Can we remember that we are in this together, even in terms of differing understandings of faith, hope, and love?
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2003/february2003.html
It would be so loverly to have Paul think with us after we sent a letter to him instead of listening in on a conversation between others. It would be about issues of our day (the obscene/obese use of food as an idol of our culture?) and we would be able to know what was in reference to our letter and what was Paul adding things we hadn't asked about. As it is, we get confused about process and tend to claim it all by Paul.
Given these difficulties, how can we read the first verse aloud?
The NIV has it, "Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge.* Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."
Their *footnote indicates, "Or, 'We all possess knowledge,' as you say"
This would put them more in tune with the NRSV which reads, "Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that 'all of us possess knowledge.' Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."
Some of the commentators indicate that this is call and response, all in one verse.
If this comes close to what is going on we need to be careful about voice and cadence in our reading to make that distinction. It would also be helpful to start a new paragraph half way through the verse (another way in which versification narrows our reading rather than opening it).
Can you hear Paul slightly mocking the line from the Corinthians (just to get their attention, of course) as he quotes from their letter "all of us possess knowledge." and then more seriously stating where that perception begins to break down - when knowledge begins to be used as a club against another - "You can't eat that because I don't like it." or "Here, put on this sweater, I'm cold." or "I'm heterosexual and you're not, so you change." or "I know you got weapons even if I can't find them, so I'll bomb you, anyway." or "etc."
So Paul makes the distinction, "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" and in that we have the rest of the story. If the church could again hear this distinction we might get out of the doctrinal battles and express the love we are called to have for one another and thus make our little witness effective.
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2003/february2003.html
One of the frustrations of language, and, in a perverse way, joys, is the way in which we can't say everything at once. Language is the equivalent of time in the old saw that G*D made time so everything wouldn't happen at once.
Yes, the strong have an obligation to the weak. What isn't said here is that the strong have no obligation when the weak card is played to tempt the strong out of their strength.
Here is a fun playing with language as you play with Paul's language. It comes from the "Quick-Start Guide" in The Sufi Book of Life by Neil Douglas-Klotz.
A Note about 'Bugs.' The book's 'program' has not been de-bugged. Actually, it has been re-bugged. Paradox and foolishness are built in, as is what is deeply serious. Sufism is a living twenty-first century tradition with many different approaches. Expressions in the book such as 'a Sufi would say . . .' or 'the Sufis . . .' should not be taken to imply that there is one unified Sufi way of being or acting. The program is incompatible with any attempts to use it to find a consistent philosophy, metaphysic, or history that can be called 'Sufi.' The programmers take no responsibility for your rational system crashing under these circumstances.
Your heart is the browser.
The pathways are the search engine.
The universe is the real Internet.
And there are many addresses to the Beloved,
whose server is always online.
Were Christians to follow the Sufis, Paul's cachet would be reduced. I wonder how willing he would be to back off from his standing with the Corinthians.
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2006/january2006.html
The "values" card has been played for a long time. There seems to always someone who will be injured, no matter which way we go on an issue. I have run into all too many who find their spirit saddened, injured when I speak of the importance of relationship over sexuality (as well as over idol dedicated food). They blame the messenger for their cognitive dissonance regarding sexual orientation. When I am silent, out of concern for their weakness, I injure all those who are being injured by their ignorance.
How do we measure our compassion to the weakest and those who are held back by the weakest having the power to distract the conversation. We are currently again engaged in a building program. We are told there will be 10% of the congregation who will never get on board with it and will leave because of it. Does that mean we should back off from this expansion because of the 10%? Does this mean we take an extra year and try to bring that down to 9%? In our care for the limits of one person? Do we drop the planning for the ninety and one of us?
This teaching is a very difficult one to apply to one and very hurtful to more if we apply it. Herein we find ourselves trapped in legalisms and political promises, even Pauline promises to always honor another's conscience. What does it mean to love, are there limits to charity? You may want to check out the newest encyclical by the latest Pope, On Christian Love.
I wish you better outcomes than I can live with in this dilemma. I see this passage as being about the importance of community and folks need to know their concerns are being heard but also need to know that their concern is not the controlling factor regarding communal decisions. It is time for us all to grow in patience with folks who are not up to speed with such larger issues as, "there is no God but one" and to grow in wisdom, regardless of how reluctant others might be to change at our pace.
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2006/january2006.html
We do so easily become accustomed to idols - that which would captivate us for its own end. Even the good things of our lives, or, more precisely, exactly the good things of our lives are prime candidates for being the strongest of idols. Personal wants, family, nation, doctrine all have moments of being exactly the right response to a particular situation and then they hang around to hang us out to dry in another.
Being so captivated makes it very easy to question any intervention on our behalf: "What have you to do with me. If I followed where you lead I won't recognize myself. In that choice your destruction is to be preferred over mine."
There is probably not a justification I have not used to keep on keeping-on with what I am doing. My knowledge about what I am up to is very puffed-up. Over-blown, even, to the point of fragility and hyper-sensitive to any attempt to change coming from the outside. Such change would explode my world and where would there be anything left on which to start to rebuild?
A first task of a prophet is to have their bubble burst about what is good. Love-of-G*D good doesn't revolve only about our knowledge. We are one satellite, among many, that becomes aware not only of trespasses against us, but ours against others. In this crucible a future is conceived, nurtured, and brought forth. This is also a first task of a congregation and a priest even though it is more difficult here to come to see it.
- - -
How you doin'?
got anything to do with me?
anything for me?
anything from me?we so question godly idols
ourselves and otherswhen we catch a connection
beyond captivity
it is no surprise
amazementthen we enshrine
our new connection
in routine expectation
ripe for burstingteaching authority
goes beyond anything for me
beyond eternalizing moments
how are you doing?
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html
The tension between living what I know to be true and living by what you know to be true is a truly difficult spot. After trying to legislate on behalf of those with a different political bias and coming up with no takers from the other side, demonstrates the demon in taking sensitivity to the point of no return.
At that point any tension has been resolved in favor of the "weaker". That sounds a lot like Jesus telling folks they are to serve one another and the greatest among us will be the greatest servant.
Certainly that is one part of a larger story, but not large enough to stand on its own. For Jesus did not back down from Pilate or others to backtrack on his sense of belovedness.
The weaker among us will bully and whine, alternatively, until they wear down the firmest prophet or saint. A question for us is where we stand because we can do no other. Even if the weaker have to get themselves into deeper difficulty, we cannot presume growth to more strength without having a larger vision, a stronger stance against which their internal contradictions might break apart.
While freedom is not to be flaunted it is also not to fizzle out. Blessings upon you as you go forth to carefully sin boldly and to boldly live carefully.
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html
Now, concerning food sacrificed to idols....
Now, concerning xxxx(anything)xxxx....
It appears any claim to knowing forgets that understanding shifts. Thus it is important to come to grips with what is claimed as a source of authority. Here Paul attributes rules, “what everyone knows”, to G*D.
In this case we are reminded that there are rules and principles beyond an immediate limitation on behavior. These larger meta-understandings come from a relationship named love. Through these we find the courage to enter into a new relationship with food and idols. Through these we find the assurance that we can break our own larger rules on behalf of others - doing so willingly, not coerced.
There is not a way to protect others from falling away from their next best ideal, much less one of their past beliefs. To operate out of false protection of another is simple enabling. It would be more helpful if Paul were to speak out of what one can do with integrity while caring for another rather than taking responsibility for their well-being. In this way I can eat with vegans and vegetarians, with omnivores and advocates of steak tartare, without trying to talk them out of their way or show them up with an alternative menu. We need more honoring of differences-in-doing than attempts at conversion-of-being.
Diets do not bring us close to ultimate reality, though they can help remind us to live out of a sense of fullness, not scarcity. Making others into ourself does not construct a paradise. Freedom to respond beyond rules leads us to the big non-rule - be with others as you would have them be with you.
Now, concerning food or anything else, be strong enough in your conscience to be gentle with the conscience of others.
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2012/01/1-corinthians-81-13.html