CONTEXTUAL AUTHORITY

February 1, 2015

Epiphany 4

1^st Corinthians 8:1-13

Mark 1:21-28

(prayer)

Last Sunday, there was soup and biscuits to eat after church.  Today, there is lunch as well - so that we can be nourished as we meet together as a congregation.

St. David’s is not a unique church when it comes to the place of food in our life together.
Although it may seem a bit anit-United Church of Canada to have to hear the reading this morning that says food will not bring us closer to God.

From the age when the earliest humans gathered as families and tribes, meals have been a cordial time - time, not simply to consume food and drink for the body, but also to connect with each other.

It is still very common today that at times of great celebration or even times of deep sorrow, there is food - whether our bodies need it or not.

And, if you are like me, very often, what is on the table is not nearly as important and who is around the table.

//

//

Today, we will (again) be sharing in what we call the Lord’s Supper - remembering what was reported to be the last meal Jesus shared with his closest followers.  This church event is sometimes called ‘eucharist’, which is a word that means grateful thanksgiving.  Most commonly in this church, we refer to this event as ‘communion’ - which literally means unity together.

In the oldest new testament record of the practice of communion (from Paul - 1^st Corinthians 11), the language is plural - this (bread/cup) is for ‘you’ (second person plural).

The holy meal planned for today is intended not to be a private affair, but a communal experience.

Not that personal spiritual experiences have not place - they are essential to nurturing one's faith.  But, there is a synergy created when God is know within community.

Jesus knew this.

Where two or three are gathered in my name, I Am there. (Mt 18:20)

//

//

Let's keep all of this in mind as we look at the passage from First Corinthians chapter eight.

//

Although we title this letter of Paul "First" Corinthians, it is not the first letter the Apostle wrote to the diverse greek church.  We know this because in chapter five, verse nine, he makes reference to a previous letter.  As we read from this book of the Bible, we are actually eavesdropping on the middle of a conversation - we are witnesses to ‘community engagement’.  Even though, history has not preserved them for us, it is obvious that there were letters that the Corinthian church leaders sent to Paul.
Within the 1st Corinthians letter, there are distinct sections where new topics are addressed.  Several times, Paul begins those sections with the words "now concerning..."

Many biblical scholars postulate that Paul had a list of questions from the church and the 1st Corinthians' letter is his response.
Paul is attempting to answer the corinthians' questions. 

//

Now concerning food sacrificed to idols.

As I have mentioned before Corinth was a diverse city - it was located at a crossroads of land traffic in Greece as well as two sea ports each serving a different sub-sea of the Mediterranean.  In Corinth, people were exposed to a variety of nationalities and cultures and languages and religions.

What is behind today's passage is a practice of one of these religions where food offerings to presented to their god.  Physically, people of that faith would place the food at the foot of a statue or a monument of some kind.  And then, in an act of social equality, presumably after it had been blessed or consecrated, people were encouraged to take the food home.
And it appears that this opportunity was available beyond the community of that particular faith.

//

The question: should the followers of Jesus be eating food that has been offered to another god?  Is that an offense to our God?

//

The Apostle's answer is a bit complicated in that he has a different response as it relates to an individual and to the church as a whole.

//

Appealing to the individual, Paul makes the point that the followers of Jesus believe that there is only one God.  Although, in the plurality of the world, there may appear to be many gods and many lords, Paul argues that only Jesus' God actually exist.
So, food sacrificed to an idol of a foreign god is really not presented to a deity at all.  It is as if Paul is saying, there is nothing special about that food and an individual filled with the knowledge of the Oneness of God ought to be able to eat such food without any conflict of faith.

But...

Not everyone is as strong in their convictions.  So, Paul extends the discussion and wonders how eating this food would impact the whole church community.

//

From all accounts, it appears that it was a common practice in the early church that the people got together for meals occasionally - they were trying to be faithful to Jesus' call to remember him when they eat and drink.  From what we read in chapter eleven, in Corinth, people meet for a community picnic of sorts.  People would bring their own food and eat their meals together. In chapter 11, Paul laid out his concerns about how some people behaved when they did that, but that can be for another sermon some other time.

I suspect that Paul's concerns over the eating of food from idols was less about what people did in the privacy of their own homes, and more centred on what food people were bringing to these communal meal times.

//

Paul recognized that there were some people within the Corinthian church that had once been followers of these religions that had this practice of offering food to idols.  Paul can imagine that since they turned away from that religion to become Christian, it may be hard to return to those practices without feeling an unease.  They may need to abstain from eating such food to keep their new faith as strong as possible.  Paul worries about imposing a crisis of faith on another member of the Christian community. When some choose to follow a practice, others might still believe this practice is an act of devotion to another god.

In his answer, Paul was asking people to consider whether what they chose to bring to the community meals might be having a negative influence on others.

//

Paul's somewhat ironic answer is:

There is nothing wrong with eating food that was sacrificed to an idol (that represents a god that doesn’t even exist).  So, I wouldn't do it if I were you!

//

I would liken this to: would you invite someone struggling with sobriety to a wine tasting party? 

[I believe that this was a storyline on a recent episode of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.]

//

//

The welfare of the community matters.

To quote a well-known Vulcan proverb: The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

//

We should be careful to notice that Paul is NOT suggesting that individuals be forced to refrain from eating idols' food.  He is simply laying out the argument and inviting people to make their own decision about what to do.  He goes as far as saying how he would respond in that situation, but he leaves the choice up to the individuals.  They are to ask themselves what is more important to me... free food or the spiritual well-being of others.

//

//

Sometimes, the question of what teachings have authority for us will vary depending of the context of the moment.

//

It is good for us to always be asking ourselves: what is right in this moment - contextual ethics!

//

Contextual ethics force us to consider where the basic tenets of our authority lie.

//

Basic tenets of authority can often be summed up easily - in short memorable phrases, like the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

Maybe you noticed it in the announcements on the screen before the service:  before you speak, T.H.I.N.K. - where think is an acronym for a contextual eithic:

·        Is it True?

·        Is it Helpful?

·        Is it Inspiring?

·        Is it Necessary?

·        Is it Kind?

T.H.I.N.K. - True, Helpful, Inspiring, Necessary, Kind

Jesus had a couple of ‘words to live by’ phrases like this.

When he was asked what was the most important commandment in the Torah, Jesus spoke about a love for God (Dt 6:5) - You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.  And he said that there was more - along with loving God, you shall love your neighbour as yourself.  (Lev 19:18b)

That is a contextual ethic that can hold authority in any situation.

Jesus even came up with one of his own when he said to his disciples (John 13:34): Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.

It should not be lost on the followers of Jesus (including us) that the basic tenets of Jesus’ ethics is deep and full compassion (aka ‘love’).

//

In today’s gospel reading Jesus helped a person suffering from a deeply troubling ailment.  From Jesus’ perspective, this was an act of compassion, of love of neighbour.

We might diagnose the person as suffering from some form of mental illness (schizophrenia?); in Jesus time, they blamed the outward behaviour of the illness on demons or evil spirits invading the body and mind.

When the person is healed, the crowds are amazed at Jesus’ abilities and almost immediately heap ‘authority’ on him - a ‘new’ teaching.  Jesus’ reputation as a skilled healer and teacher began to spread throughout the land.

//

Authority can be gained in one or both of two ways:

1.     Ex officio - by virtue of one’s position or training; and

2.     Experiential - by virtue of what one does.

Everyone we have ever viewed as authoritative is viewed that way based on a combination of who they are and what they do.

So, which means to authority is the more significant?

They are both important, but experiential authority always trumps ex officio authority.  The mighty fall - when their behaviour can’t justify their authority. 

Ask OJ Simpson.  

Ask Bill Cosby. 

Ask Allison Redford.

//

I have had the personal experience of being deeply disappointed by a mentor.  When I was newly ordained, there was one particular minister that I saw as a good example to follow.  A few years later, I had to sit in judgement over him in light of accusations of pastoral sexual misconduct.

Authority is not a given.  And it is never given permanently.

//

How we behave ultimately dictates how much authority we can carry.

That is where contextual ethics becomes important.

ÿ    Whose good can I serve?

ÿ    Will I be loving God, neighbour and self?

ÿ    THINK before I speak and act.

ÿ    What Would Jesus Do?

Let us pray:

Praise be to you, O God of all creation.  We exist in you and through you and for you.  Through love, may we learn what it means to be your people.  Amen.

***offering***