To let go or not to let go – that is
the question
Whether ‘tis nobler to judge or
forgive;
To bite one’s tongue, take a stand;
to be pointedly right, to respectfully hold a plethora of truth...
Visiting Germany, years ago, I was
shocked into a new understanding of what reformation within the church really
meant. Walking into St.Lorenz Kirche, a Lutheran Church in Nuremburg, I was not
prepared for the sanctuary decor. Above
the altar hangs a larger than life artistic rosary wreath. Created in metal,
ten large roses, with miniatures in between, form a round frame around the
golden image of St. Anne holding the Virgin Mary as a child. Both are crowned and sit enthroned in
heaven. Not the typical art found in a
reformed church.
In the 1500’s all the churches in
Germany were Roman Catholic, as was the rest of the Holy Roman Empire. As
Princes supported the Reformers and adhered to new understandings of God, the
Church, faith, scripture, and so on, churches within their jurisdictions simply
became the Evangelical Church – now called Lutheran. The buildings didn’t change right away or at
all, the service sounded pretty close to the same, some started to use
vernacular language and hymns. Luther
wrote catechisms for the people to teach their children and a larger catechism to teach Roman priests new
understandings as they were now no longer Roman priests but over night became Evangelical
pastors. Imagine the turmoil and chaos;
the debates; what was right and what was wrong... what to let go, or not to let
go – that was the question.
Go back a century and a bit more and
you have Paul in Rome facing a group of faithful people dedicated to God and
living according to God’s will ... but, it was not one unified group. It was observant Jews confronted with a group
of Jews claiming the Messiah had come.
It was non-Jews, God-fearers, who converted to Judaism to enter into a
life of following Christ. It was
gentiles following Christ without picking up the entirety of Jewish law. It was a debate of what was right and what
was wrong; it was a constant crisis and conversation of what to let go, or not
to let go – that was the question.
Move forward to the past couple of
weeks. I journeyed to my mom’s house for my dad’s funeral and to help go
through dad’s things. My brother also
traveled to Elliot Lake. Now my brother
and I have not lived under one roof for a very long time; and when we did I was
a little older, a little taller, and a whole lot more bossy. I like to think that I usually got my
way. As adults the dynamic changed. We are both fairly opinionated people, with
definitely different orders of operations, lifestyles, and fundamental
ethos. Our time together was one of
living with the action of: to let go, or
not to let go; to bite one’s tongue, or take a stand; to be pointedly right; or
respectfully hold a plethora of truth.
Despite what we judged some of the
other’s decisions to be, there was no fighting and no hard feelings. The reason - outside of loving each other-
was that we were bound together with a common purpose behind our decisions and
thoughts and actions. Our common bond,
the fundamental principle was that we were there to help/support/encourage our
mom. In the end nothing else mattered.
James Dunn, an academic who has
spent his life working with Paul and particularly the book of Romans, comments
that in the early church there was only one fundamental principle, and that the
principle had the power to hold the community in Rome and around the world in
unity. The early Christian fundamental
operating principle was Christ and the Christ event (life, death, and life).
The problems experienced in the
growing community, as outlined by Paul, were created by adding more fundamental
principles to the only principle required.
It was the adding of fundamentals that led to conservative factions,
fractions, and frictions. So today’s
reading goes on about those judged to be weak, those judged for what they eat
or don’t eat... where Paul’s argument is going is that in Christ and the Christ
event alone, there is unity.
Dunn goes on to argue that by
holding to the one fundamental principle of Christ, it allows for a vast
diversity within the community of faithful – and this leads to a clearer and
fuller expression of God because God cannot be expressed in God’s entirety by
any one group of people. Paul’s argument
in the beginning of chapter 14 of Romans, challenges the traditionalists by
suggesting that their definition of Christianity is too small; the last half of
the chapter points the same finger at the liberal contingent in the community.
Paul’s overarching concern is that the church should be able to sustain a
diversity of opinion and lifestyle and that this is an integral part of common life.
In Paul’s experience at Rome, the
community struggled in its ability: To let go or not to let go –
Whether ‘tis nobler to judge or
forgive; to bite one’s tongue, take a stand; to be pointedly right, or
respectfully hold a plethora of truth.
The case was the same during the Reformation and counter-reformations to
follow. The case is the same in the
church today and in our personal everyday lives. God’s people in all walks and
dimensions of our lives should be able to sustain a diversity of opinion and
lifestyle for this is an integral part of common life.
I’ve had some time to begin
reflecting on my relationship with my dad.
It was a really good relationship.
As I grew up though, I was glad that I was pastoring churches farther than
a few hours drive away. It meant that I
felt a freedom to say and be an expression of faith different from that of my
father. We held diverse opinions on many
subjects particularly those that I consider fall into the realms of social
ethics and Post-Modern philosophy, rather than into the domain of categorizing
sin and corruption of the Word. What it
meant inside our relationship as father and daughter was a certain amount of
respect. I knew what my dad thought, and
I suspect that he had an idea of my thought; we both knew that we held to one
underlying principle Christ and the Christ event. So I choose for the goodness of relationship
–and I am sure he did as well - to let
go, to bite-my-tongue, to live with a plethora of truth. Arguing would not have changed either of our
thoughts or beliefs; and could have destroyed our relationship.
The examples I’ve shared can be
transposed on the church today.
Many of us have either been a part
of or heard stories of churches that implode or explode --- imploding by adding extra fundamental
principles; exploding by letting go and not letting go or people pointedly
“being right.” The Romans text speaks to faithful communities throughout time
to remind us and refocus our core principal. Paul writes of ways for the
community to get back in shape – meaning in relationship with each other.
I like what Gaugler a New Testament
scholar says reflecting on Paul’s argument in Romans, he says “correct faith
immediately becomes wrong when it violates love.” Can that not hold true to all our words and
actions in any relationship – whether at church, work, or with family?
James Dunn also holds to a similar
thought for the church of all times and in all places commenting that: In order
for me be to be right, it does not necessitate that you are wrong. General respect is being willing to stand up
for the others and even uphold their belief (not necessarily do it or believe
it), but hold that their view is valid and as acceptable to God as my own.
Finally this morning I wonder if
Paul’s idea of holding to one fundamental principle – Christ – with all else
being a greater expression of God, if this thought relates to Jesus’
understanding of forgiveness. Could our
mutual acceptance (rather than judgement) of the others’ belief and practice be
a form of forgiveness?
Ancient ideology held that the
number seven was one of fullness and perfection – for it is a combination of
the number three, representing divinity; and the number 4 recalling the corners
of the earth (remember that the earth was considered flat). For Jesus to combine seven and seven he illustrates
a grand scheme of multiplying the number of total perfection; a grand scheme of
the vast realm and grace of God.
For the community of Paul’s day, the
people living in the time of the Reformation, for my relationship with my
brother, my father, and for the church today --- unity is found in being bound
by one principle --- and continually struggling for total perfection in
relationship; a continued struggle from Jesus’ time through to today and into
tomorrow.
To let go or not to let go – that is
the question. Take comfort that neither
is to be judged right or wrong, rather, live into perfection, into forgiveness;
into the main event -Christ; for whether you choose to let go or not let go, if
done in honour of the Lord and in giving thanks to God, it is acceptable.
Eugene Petersen sums up this section
of Romans this way:
What’s
important in all this is that if you keep a holy day, keep it for God’s sake;
if you eat meat, eat it to the glory of God and thank God for prime rib; if
you’re a vegetarian, eat vegetables to the glory of God and thank God for broccoli. None of us are permitted to insist on our own
way in these matters. It’s God we are
answerable to --- all the way from life to death and everything in between ---
not each other. That’s why Jesus lived
and died and then lived again: so that he could be our Master across the entire
range of life and death, and free us from the petty tyrannies of each
other. ...so tend to your knitting.
You’ve got your hands full just taking care of your own life before God.+
