Romans 14 - Again

 1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?

Context

Once again, I have been embroiled in a debate about interpreting Romans 14:

To repeat what is in another post below, the passage is addressing a debate in the roman church about eating foods offered to idols.  Some in the body came from a Jewish background where this practice was considered sin.  Another part of the body came from a gentile background where food is food.  Add to the mix the position that Christians would consider idols to be powerless, therefore there is no moral burden associated with eating such food.  And so, we have fuel for a raging battle in the body.

This battle is not unlike the current one regarding Covid mitigation activities.  The passage has been liberally (ab)used by Christians whenever a debate arises about masks and Covid vaccinations with the claim that both sides must graciously accommodate the other.

Application

Let’s tease this out…

At one end: does it affect any person whether another person eats food from a given source?  Nope.  Fred cannot harm Joe by his own food choice.  All that is at issue is an obsolete religious requirement – so the decision can go either way.  Note that in the passage Paul does not arbitrate as to who is right, likely because it does not matter.  He is encouraging those with no strong opinion to be accommodating of those with a strong opinion, and vice versa, and so to express love.  The passage is good guidance.

Let’s go to a different extreme.  If I conclude that it is acceptable (indeed necessary) for me to spray poison gas over a crowd at regular intervals, am I able to demand that others respect my opinion and refrain from stopping me, or even criticizing me, as I partake in my new hobby?  I could argue that the passage demands me complete freedom in my opinions and decisions.  My rights are more important than theirs.  The obvious flaw in this argument is that the bible is even louder about God’s requirement that we refrain from hurting people.  So, obedience and love supersede a requirement to be tolerant of the unimportant. 

There is clearly a line between these two extremes – but where is it?  I would argue that the line is defined by the oft-repeated commandment to love.

Let's apply this then to the topic at hand.  If I conclude that it is acceptable (indeed necessary) for me to breathe a deadly virus over people at regular intervals, am I able to demand that others respect my opinion and refrain from stopping me or even criticizing me as I partake in my new hobby?  I could argue that the passage demands me complete freedom in my opinions and decisions.

Oh.  Maybe Romans 14 does not apply here.

But wait, the cry becomes, the disease is a myth, vaccines are dangerous, they don’t work well enough, it is my right to make choices about my body, I was tested last month, the president said …  All of these are simply deflections from the critical point, even if any of them were even partially true – if I am insisting on putting others at (unnecessary) risk, I am failing to love.

Every argument I have heard against acting to reduce the risk of disease transmission has been based on a combination of:

• My rights.  Be aware that every time the bible discusses rights – it is telling people to lay them down for the good of others.
• I am free to make my own choices.  Great – I am also free to spray poison gas on you.  Freedom from societal responsibility is a myth.
• “Research” reported by social media – and if it is published on the interweb by a conspiracy theorist or partisan reporter it must be true, right?
• My conscience tells me what to do – but who or what guides your conscience if not scripture?  1 Tim 1:5 points to the results of a clear conscience being love.  Funny how that keeps coming up as the ultimate test. 
• The solutions are uncomfortable and inconvenient and they limit interaction – but interacting with the dead and those on ventilators is even harder.
• The vaccines are derived from aborted fetuses.  There is some merit to this one.
• Death rates are lower than car accidents – that may be so, but only because a lot of the cost of your car is in safety measures.  Do you make your kids wear safety belts?
• It’s not so bad.  Tell that to those in intensive care right now, let alone the long-termers and those mourning the dead.
• I can get a religious exemption from the Governor.  Such a claim is effectively asserting that “Jesus says vaccines are bad.”  I suspect that Jesus is not entirely happy about such a misrepresentation of His authority.

Judgment

·         If I point out that some actions appear to be a failure to love, am I being judgmental?

·         If I suggest that some actions may irritate the all-powerful sovereign creator, am I being judgmental?

·         If I invite people to provide me with scriptures that state that vaccines are evil, so I may be turned back from my erring ways, am I being judgmental?

·         If I don’t want to hang out with people who are likely to be breathing a deadly virus on me, am I being judgmental?

·         If I beg people to make decisions based on scripture and science rather than party rhetoric, am I being judgmental?

·         Even if Romans 14 applied here – have I violated it?  Apparently so.

A

A