1 Corinthians 8:1-13

I grew up in a Church of the Nazarene parsonage in the 1970s and 1980s. What this means is that I saw no movies in the theater, I sat on the sidelines during square dance days in gym class, and I believed that drinking alcohol was a terrible and dangerous thing to do. My mom and dad had dutifully taken off all their jewelry (including wedding bands) for college yearbook photos. We were a people of specific behavior avoidance, because that was what holiness was for us in those days– a set of rules to follow scrupulously. We were a global denomination with US-centric rules of behavior that validated our righteousness. Our restrictions were far more important than our freedoms.

It's hard to imagine Paul thinking that was wise or even necessary when we read today’s passage. Yes, staying away from “the meat served to idols” was important – IF and this is a very important “if” – you truly believed those idols did something to the food. If you were actually identifying this as a worship practice that meant something to YOU then, yes, by all means stay away. Paul does say that if someone else could be affected, to also consider refraining, but his actual point was that the behavior ITSELF is only sinful if the person who is eating the meal actually believes it matters.

This is the difference between suggesting that alcohol consumption is evil for everyone and sinful in and of itself and determining to stay away from alcohol because it impacts you, your family, and those around you in a negative way. These perspectives are entire continents apart. The early holiness people were prohibitionists because of the second reason more often than not, believing that the danger of alcohol was that it led to other behaviors that negatively impacted people: spending too much, being irresponsible and sometimes violent. This was a serious social ill that had impacted many, many people in negative ways.

The early holiness people were also against jewelry, primarily because of the cost. As long as there were hungry people, both spiritually and physically, how could one justify the expense of frippery? Or as Rev. Mary Lee Cagle often referred to it “flowers and feathers”? The urgency these evangelists felt for proclaiming the gospel was akin to Paul’s, but in their exuberance they made rules for everyone that should have remained rules for their own consciences.

When we determine what behaviors constitute sin for everyone else (outside of God’s very clear directive to love our neighbor and. our God) we begin to change the gospel message from one of liberation and Spirit-lead transformation into one of bondage to a particular set of conformationist requirements. Whenever God condemned the Children of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, it was most often over their insistence on the spectacle of worship. They would neglect the hurting in an effort to look good. They would set aside generosity to increase their own respectability. They held on to a form of godliness with none of its power.

And if you think Jesus changed all of that emphasis, think again: the story of the Good Samaritan continues the theme of denouncing performance as piety, and celebrating the kindnesses of those who broke all the rules.

Paul’s address to the Corinthians emphasizes the same thing: sin beyond loving your neighbor is a matter of conscience, and sometimes to love your neighbor you defer to someone else’s conscience, but creating rules for everyone else because of YOUR conscience, because of YOUR conviction, is not biblical – in fact, it is specifically condemned. God may call you to remain celibate your entire life. That is God’s call for you, and it would be up to me to avoid flaunting my marriage in your face. But it would also be a sin for you to condemn me for being married, because my conviction is not the same as yours. In Galatians, when addressing another kind of legalism (which is what all of this boils down to!) Paul writes “It is for freedom you have been set free. Stand firm and do not let yourselves be burdened by a yoke of slavery.” The chains of a restrictive faith that expands the list of don’ts to include anything one person or another can find a handy proof text for are the slavery.

Paul’s reminder that what we do ought to be for the edification and care of others, and not for the purpose of creating an idol of holy behaviors that we sacrifice everyone around us to is a helpful reflection during this season of Epiphany. Perhaps we can relearn what it means to be holy in a season that acknowledges the gift of Christ as the revelation of God’s perfect love and grace to humanity.