WHEN OUR EARS HURT
SCRIPTURE: I Cor. 8:1-13
Arkansas has not had a political caucus or party primary for the race of U.S. President, but my ears hurt anyway. They have a ringing that makes the physical aliment of tinnitus--that buzzing in my ears--insignificant.
Sure, it is politics. But politics like we have never experienced before. Politics that both sides of the political aisle are most unhappy with these days. For the ears of everyone in the country seem to be hurting already with nine months to go. And then will it stop? Doubtful, as then the partisan bickering of Congress will once again have center stage.
The thoughts to be shared with you today are of more than about politics. Rather, they have to do with a lesson(s) from St. Paul in writing to the Christians of Corinth. It could be said that Paul’s ears were hurting from hearing about the divisiveness coming from the Corinthian Christians. And there were those believer-followers in the church of Corinth whose ears were hurting on either side of the debate, too. Perhaps denominationally we are experiencing such a time where our ears are hurting from those unhappy with PC(USA), the recent changes in the Book of Order or how the confessions of our Book of Confessions are being treated or not treated. Our ears hurt.
In particular, from our text of the hour, the argument at Corinth was regarding whether it was right or wrong that Christians could eat meat which had first been offered to idols or to even eat in the temples of idol worship. Sounds like such a silly argument to us in the 21st century.
But then and there, the cultural gods it was believed did somehow or somewhat partake or eat of the sacrificial meats offered to them, but there were left-overs. Not to surprising, right? ‘So why should it go to waste?’ asked those on one side of the debate. While to the other side it was viewed as an abomination for Christians to eat meat that previously was offered as sacrifices to pagan gods.
Which side was right, which wrong?
Paul’s spirit, mind, and ears must have hurt over Corinthian Christians‘ controversy. So Paul attempts in this passage to wade through, with a certain legalistic flare that he often used, to get to a greater spiritual truth.
Perhaps the debate on ”eating meat first offered to idols” was not the most contested legalistic argument among the various early Christians. The greatest argument among the church communities that we ascertain from Acts and the epistles had to do with circumcision and whether this Jewish rite should be required of Christians, too. But here, of this text, it was the meat-eating thing.
What Paul first tackles in his discussion is “knowledge.” Within the thinking of the Stoic Greek philosophy, knowledge was of most importance. Even to know oneself was a powerful maxim. So, yes, those on both sides of the “eating-meat” argument must have claimed to be knowledgeable persons.
But Paul declares that knowledge can “puff up,” make persons proud to become blind to truth. Knowledge can used to tout superiority, privilege, and so on. ‘Be cautious with knowledge,’ is the essence of Paul’s warning. This was applicable to all who were in this fuss.
Then Paul pushes the envelope to point out that knowledge-gone-wild competes with the love of Christ. To bring this down to earth, Paul is saying, ‘the trump card as Christians is not knowledge, but love.’ Love should always trump the “rightness” in disagreements.
We each know from experience what a challenge this can be. Especially in the face of substantiated or collaborated facts, it is exasperating when dealing with a person(s) who refuse(s) to accept them as such. In the political rhetoric noted earlier, how exasperating it is to hear out-and-out lies or interpretations spun to confuse or distort the truth.
An important footnote here is that Paul is not castigating knowledge, but run-away knowledge, knowledge that eclipses love. Love is to be greater than winning arguments, attaining victories, or creating a tough persona. This is a hard lesson to learn. Jesus taught to this most aptly in his Teachings on the Mount. Be meek, suffer for righteousness’ sake, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile. These were/are expectations, not options, for believer-followers.
If we stop and consider what the most important argument would be in which one could lose-face, be embarrassed as a weakling, shown as a coward in choosing not to brutally fight for an argument, it would have to be for the sake of Jesus Christ. However, if we stop and think, to be considered a loser in attempting to defend Jesus against the strongest critics, does not mean one is wrong. Will not God still have God’s day--that final say? And besides, with that most important of disagreements, how many persons would be brought to the Christ of peace and love, by a believer-follower behaving in an opposite manner?
In addition to the teachings of Jesus, review the confrontations Jesus had with the religious leaders or think of the encounters of those who desired something of him, such as healing. Jesus always left room for non-acceptance or refusal. Coercion, force, was not part of Jesus’ behavioral repertoire. Even with Pilate and Herod, Jesus stood in awesome humility to the power he had and of who he was.
Paul next interjected his understanding to both sides of this church argument. On the one side, Paul was an advocate to the freedom had through Christ. He, no doubt, had heard the words of Jesus from his years before that “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles but what comes out of it from one’s heart.”
The argument that idols were not really gods for there was only one true God, so therefore to eat meat first offered to idols should carry no stigma among Christians, made sense. Yet, Paul explained also that it made sense for some to perceive the eating of such meat as a lack of devotion or commitment to the one and only real God.
Paul explained to them that if eating meat caused one to stumble this is not love, for love builds-up. Of course, reading between the lines, Paul could as well have said that if “not eating meat” causes one to stumble this, too, is not love. So, why did Paul choose to use as his example those who had chosen to eat the meat previously offered to idols and/or to eat it in the worship-centers for idols?
We somewhat speculate here beyond what he said. But perhaps it was because those who thought eating the meat of idol-worship to be harmless, could eat meat from elsewhere. ‘Change the meat-supplier and eat elsewhere than a pagan temple,’ was Paul’s position. However, he did directly say, “one is no worse for not eating nor is one any better who does.”
As well, Paul points out that those who were stronger in the faith should accept the practice of those who were weaker in refusing to eat the idol-meat. But Paul, as Jesus years before, refused to force the argument to get all on one side of the issue. They were given the greater truth in the hopes they would accept it.
Love is to reign, even in the most crucial of disagreements. Another way, as well, to speak to such occasions when emotional reactions could be brought to pitch levels would be--to take others seriously and oneself less seriously.
Finally, there is not just the negative side to avoid, but the positive side to letting love rule. Love is of God, especially the love we hold from Christ. And when the love of Christ is applied, it works, transforms, pleasantly surprises, restores, builds-up and so on.
Immediate results may camouflage always seeing this. But, even for one’s greatest adversary love will be as heaps of coal dumped upon them. Though one may outwardly boast and strut as the victor over one who carried him/herself with a loving spirit, internally that other’s loving-reaction surely must be food for thought.
When our minds, hearts, or ears hurt of thinking, feeling, or hearing the unfounded charges of the politicians or the neighbor who espouses them, yield in loving-silence. When one is found in a heated disagreement over doctrine or theology, give love as humility that well could turn wrath away.
It is difficult to exit such scenes of confrontation without a sense of triumph. But Jesus did so, even in his trials and execution. He appeared as a loser, weak, even dead. But we know better.
Amen.