Sunday, September 17, 2017 | 8:00 a.m.

Being Right

Victoria G. Curtiss
Associate Pastor, Fourth Presbyterian Church

Psalm 114
Romans 14:1–12

Christians have too little awareness of how often, despite its ethic of love and peace, Christianity in its actual appearance and activity, strikes the adherents of other religions as exclusive, intolerant, and aggressive.

Hans Kung, Theology for the Third Millennium

“It depends.”

“What would you do in this situation?” “It depends.” That is the response often given by individuals, especially by women, when asked what they would do when facing a moral dilemma. “It depends.” In fact, a book was published in 1982 called In a Different Voice by Carol Gilligan that spells out that females tend to make moral choices based on the context of a given situation in light of one’s responsibilities toward others and the impact on relationships. In contrast, males tend to make moral choices in reference to an external, objective set of principles related to fairness.

For many years, “it depends” was regarded as wishy-washy, casting the decider as a person without conviction or clarity or less mature on the scale of moral development. That assessment was based on a masculine bias. Not only were those who developed theories for moral development themselves men—like Sigmund Freud, Erik Erickson, and Lawrence Kohlberg—but their thinking about moral development was based only on studies of males’ lives and their adoption of male life as the norm.

Let’s unpack this in modes of thinking between the genders, which has psychological roots. Males develop their gender identities and claim autonomy by separating themselves from their primary caregiver, who is usually female. Females, on the other hand, develop their gender identity by staying connected in relationship with their female caregiver. This affects the mode of thinking each gender uses to make moral choices.

In the conventional moral framework, based on a masculine bias, the highest stages of moral development are based on respect for human rights. It uses a formal and abstract perspective that connects morality with rights and rules. The second framework, which females tend to use, connects morality with caring, centered on an understanding of responsibility and relationships. Its resolution requires thinking that is contextual and narrative.

The first mode of thinking is called morality of rights; the second is called morality of responsibility. In the morality of rights, the individual is more primary than the relationship, and the moral dilemma is about how to exercise one’s rights without interfering with the rights of others.

In the morality of responsibility, relationships are primary over the individual, and the moral dilemma is how to lead a moral life that includes obligations to others. One female law student articulated this by saying, “I have a very strong sense of being responsible to the world, that I can’t just live for my enjoyment, but just the fact of being in the world gives me an obligation to do what I can to make the world a better place to live in, no matter how small a scale that may be on” (Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice, p. 21).

Both modes of thinking are valuable. But in today’s scripture reading, I propose that the Apostle Paul is encouraging his hearers to “think like a girl,” or a woman, if you will.

Here is the situation. The Christians in the early church in Rome were quarreling with one another about who was right and who was not in how they practiced their religion. They were passing judgment on one another on who was better than who. There were two streams of thought. Some thought their freedom in Christ meant old food laws no longer applied and that one day of the week was no more special than another. Others still believed it was wrong to eat meat and the sabbath should be rigorously observed.

Paul himself agreed with those who felt free to eat meat and not observe one day as more religious than another. He referred to the vegetarian sabbath-keepers as “weak in faith.” It wasn’t that Paul was against people being vegetarians per se (which is good, since I myself have been one). No, it was that Paul saw these folks as legalists who still viewed Christianity as a set of rules and regulations. Moreover, they acted as though they needed to earn God’s favor through their works—by what they did or didn’t do. They didn’t understand or trust that God loved them unconditionally and that their salvation was a gift of God’s grace.

That’s a pretty big theological difference. But even though Paul called one side weak in faith and even though he agreed with the other side, he did not encourage his like-minded Christian friends to criticize, correct, or try to influence the others away from their scruples. Instead, Paul instructed these Christians to welcome the others. He urged them to recognize and honor the fact that everyone was seeking to do what they believed was right in the eyes of God.

This is a theme we find Paul addressing also to the early Christians in Corinth, another church experiencing conflict. He wrote to them, “All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial” (1 Corinthians 10:23). “All things are lawful” means you are free and have the right in the eyes of God to act certain ways. “But not all things are beneficial”: it may not be helpful to others if you use your freedom to take such actions. If you act in ways that others consider “wrong” or against their religious beliefs, you could cause them to stumble or go against their conscience. Paul even goes as far as to say, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean” (Romans 14:14).

So as a Christian, should you eat meat? Well, it depends. It depends on whether you are in the company of others who consider eating meat wrong in the eyes of God. You can certainly eat meat in the privacy of your own home or with like-minded folks. But Paul says you shouldn’t eat meat in front of others who don’t share your same convictions. You may cause them to stumble. Your freedom and right to eat whatever you choose is less important than the impact your behavior has on your neighbor. Your “being right” should take a back seat to whether you are showing care and respect for your neighbor. You should not cause your brother or sister to fall. So, whether you eat meat or not just depends.

See how this mode of thinking is similar to what women tend to use in making choices? It is contextual. One considers one’s responsibility toward others and shows care for relationships.

Now the issues we Presbyterians face are not the same as the Christians in Rome or Corinth. If one of us chooses to be vegetarian, it’s usually for health reasons—their own or the health of the planet. If someone works on Sundays or shops or takes children to soccer games, we are accepting.

Still, when we interact with persons with other religious beliefs, we are called to respect their religious dietary restrictions, even if we are free not to follow them. For instance, you shouldn’t serve pork or shellfish to your Jewish friends. You shouldn’t invite Eastern Orthodox Christians to go out to lunch on their days of fasting. In the company of Hindu or Buddhist persons it would be best not to eat meat.

What about drinking? Should you drink alcohol? It depends. You yourself may enjoy drinking and are not an alcoholic. You may have no trouble limiting what you drink before driving and do not abstain from alcohol for religious reasons. But that may be different for people around you. One of the small groups in our church routinely includes wine with their monthly dinner gatherings. One month they invited a Muslim woman to make a presentation to them and debated whether they should serve alcohol when she came, since Muslims don’t drink alcohol. Though some disagreed, I think they made the right decision to serve punch instead of wine that evening, out of respect for her.

Besides religious reasons, there are other factors to consider around drinking. When we serve alcohol in our church building for events, we purposely restrict it to areas where children and youth will not be around, so as not to make it easily accessible to them or to set a bad example. You may have people in your social circle who choose to avoid drinking for a variety of reasons. Paul taught us to respect others. Your freedom with drinking should be limited by the impact your behavior could have on another. Don’t tempt another to go against their convictions. Don’t cause another to stumble.

Paul was especially concerned about causing others to go against their own religious convictions, but his teaching has broader applications. We should always examine when our actions may cause harm to others. Take smoking. Should you smoke cigarettes? It depends. You are certainly free to decide whether to smoke or not. But should you smoke around nonsmokers? We know that secondary smoke, as well as direct smoking, contributes to cancer. So we need to be mindful, again, of whether the ways we use our freedom are causing harm to others.

Another example is how we invest our money. You are free, if you have the means, to invest your resources in any legal manner that you wish. But what are the ethics of the companies in which you invest? Do they match your faith-based values and principles? Do the companies pay fair wages, conduct fair labor practices, and intentionally hire people of color? Are they involved with gambling, land exploitation, or war materials? Do they make a major contribution to carbon dioxide emissions? Again, your freedom to invest wherever you want needs to be checked by whether your investments are causing harm to others or creation.

Perhaps none of these situations is particularly challenging for you. Perhaps you can easily determine your response in situations where “it depends.” It may be clear to you how to show others respect or assess when harm may be done. What may be the harder challenge is placing limits on yourself when you know you are right.

Being right is, of course, what we all think we are. We don’t carry beliefs we think are wrong. We may change our minds with new information or experiences. We can be influenced by others. But where we land is what we think is right. And isn’t it so tempting to judge others different from ourselves, whom we deem are wrong? Isn’t it tempting to ridicule, criticize, and even hold in contempt those whose beliefs differ from our own? Don’t we all want to set the record straight, to correct and influence others’ way of thinking?

Of course we want others to think like we do, because, after all, we are right. But Paul warns us against showing contempt or expressing ridicule. He even warns against judging others for their beliefs. When we are in disagreement with how another person seeks to honor God, we should simply respect the difference. We are not to look down on others for what they hold sacred. We are not to become annoying nags but show everyone respect. This is the way to embody love, the highest Christian principle.

But wait, you may say. What about when someone makes a racial slur or tells a derogatory joke about an ethnic group? Aren’t we supposed to challenge that? Yes, indeed we are called to challenge that. Such speech causes harm. And that’s the litmus test. Is what you or another is doing causing harm? We are still called to speak truth to power, to challenge injustice, to confront evil. That is different from what we are talking about here. The times we don’t criticize are in relation to what others believe honors God.

Besides, let’s be practical. If you really want to influence another’s way of thinking and acting, it’s not very effective to argue and ridicule. Quarreling just stirs up irritation, defensiveness, resistance, and even withdrawal in others and discord in the body of Christ. The best way to “be right” is to show love. Showing love is what each of us is accountable to God for, especially. Showing love is more important than being right. Amen.