MY PRO ME/NOBIS INTERPRETATION OF ROMANS 14:1-12



JUDGING AND COMMUNITY IN ROMANS:

AN ACTION WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES

Tan, Yak-Hwee

Vanderbilt University

Introduction

Asia is a continent of paradoxes and plurality, geographically, politically, economically and religiously. In light of these pluralities and complexities, the question as to how does one do Asian biblical hermeneutics has been addressed and continue to be addressed by both Asian theologians and biblical critics. However, with the world of politics “entering a new phase in which the great divisions among humankind and dominating conflict will be cultural,”[1] Asian biblical hermeneutics which were primarily political and socio-economic in nature[2] must go beyond these boundaries to include the cultural and religious dimensions.

This is particularly true in the context of Southeast Asia with Singapore as a representation of the multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious aspect of the region. In other words, Singapore is a pluralistic society. For this paper, I seek to demonstrate that the Christian community, with reference to first-generation Chinese Christians who are confronted with cultural and religious questions. One of the questions raised is whether one can be different within the Christian community without being judged, and conversely whether maintaining community relationships is more important than anything else, like principles and rules. Paul gives counsel in Rom 14:1-15:13 to the Christian community in Rome who was struggling with the issue of “to eat or not to eat” and “to observe or not to observe.” This text is subjected to various interpretations of which mine is one.

For me, one of the main teachings of Rom. 14:1-15:13 in the wider framework of the letter is that it is appropriate and proper for Christians to be different. Hence, I will argue in this paper that we have no right to judge anyone who is different from us, especially in a pluralistic society such as Singapore where community understanding and living is important for the maintenance of the nation’s political and socio-economic structure. The reading of Rom. 14:1-15:13 from the community dimension will unravel that judging in the community amounts to ostracizing or marginalizing. When someone is being judged in a community, (s)he is ostracized or marginalized from his/her community even though (s)he remains within the community. Moreover, the text raises the question as to who we are to marginalize members of our community, because ultimately all of us are accountable before God who creates that community. Therefore, whether one is “weak” or one “has faith,” whether one is male or female, whether one is from the First World or from the ‘Rest of the World,” one is intrinsically related to all the others within the community, upholding and bearing responsibility for the other. In other words, the issue of ‘eating’ becomes a secondary issue both for the one who is “weak” and the one who “has faith.”

To support my argument, first, I will briefly present the specific context that informed such a conclusion.[3] Having established the specific context, I will proceed with the assistance of literary-rhetorical analysis, to discuss some important theological concerns of Rom. 14:1-15:13 that will help to clarify the question of judging for the Roman Christian community. The literary-rhetorical and theological analyses therefore, will provide me the foundation to read the text as an Asian Chinese woman from a community dimension.

Opening Vignette

Statistics show that 16 per cent of the Singapore population are Christians[4] of which a considerable proportion comes from one ethnic group, the Chinese. Moreover, many of the Chinese Christians are first-generation Christians meaning that they come from families who practice a different religion and/or a combination of religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. Therefore, one of the struggles Chinese Christians encounter is the issue of eating food that have been offered to “idols”[5] or participation at ancestor worship. Let me illustrate from the real-life situation of Dawn.[6]

Dawn comes from a non-Christian Chinese family deeply in traditional Chinese beliefs and practices. She became a Christian, that is, she accepted Jesus Christ as her Savior and Lord after attending an evangelistic meeting held at her secondary school. Dawn’s ‘follow-up’ leader told her that from the time of her ‘conversion,’ she could not participate in ancestor worship,[7] meaning that taking of joss-sticks and eating food offered at the worship are prohibited. The passages from 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14:1-15:13 were used as proof texts. Hence, Dawn was confronted with the dilemma, “to eat or not to eat,” and “to observe or not to observe.” When she consulted with other members of the church, she was informed of another interpretation, according to which such a prohibition is justified when the “eating” causes someone to stumble in his/her faith because his/her conscience is weak. When she became a Christian, Dawn did not realize that she would be confronted with a religious-cultural dilemma. She sincerely desired to be a faithful and obedient Christian in the Christian community and at the same time, wanted to affirm the cultural tradition in which she was raised. Therefore, the issue of “eating” is not only a religious matter; it also challenges her Chinese cultural ethos of filial piety and familial ties.

The two interpretations of a text reveal that the text is “fluid” and that these interpretations are influenced by theological presuppositions of the reader(s). Hence, are there other plausible interpretations? For Dawn, the question of “judging” in light of the community is urgent and has to be addressed. How can Dawn come to a decision in a community that is divided on the issue of “to eat or not to eat”? As a Chinese Presbyterian minister from a non-Christian family, I used to pastor a Chinese-speaking church whose membership are mainly Christians from non-Christian families.[8] In this context, the church and I have always struggled with the questions of ‘judging” (ostracizing or marginalizing) in light of the one who is “weak” vis-à-vis the one who “has faith.” Can we define the one who is “weak” and the one who “has faith”? Rom. 14:1-15:13 allows me to do so. The text raises the question: What is the teaching of this text for me, an Asian Chinese Christian woman today? What is the teaching which is faithful to the Scriptures in a pluralistic society, like Singapore?

Using Rom 14:1-15:13 in the wider framework of the letter, I will argue that it is appropriate for Christians to be different and that the myriad facets of Christian community warrant it. Moreover, our accountability to the other insists that judging (ostracizing or marginalizing) is inappropriate in a community. Hence, we have no right to ostracize or marginalize anyone who comes from a different orientation, be it gender, race or religion. This text also teaches what it means for Christian believers to live within the community and to witness as a Christian community in pluralistic Singapore. In fact, in the preceding verses (Rom. 13:8-13)[9] Paul has already appealed to the Roman Christians to have love for one another.

Such is the context that relates the “scriptural text” and “life situation” in my reading of Rom. 14:1-15:13. Literary and theological analyses of the text from analytical and theological commentaries will further elaborate this reading. Furthermore, using the lens of Chinese understanding of the individual and community,[10] I will show that judging entails ostracizing or marginalizing the other. In conclusion, I will argue that difference is appropriate and is to be celebrated within the community.

Kuan-hsi between the “weak” and

the one who “has faith”

The focus of a Confucian is upon the “organic relationship” between the individual and the “group,” whether the “group” is defined in terms of the family, or the village, or the government.[11] The emphasis on such interdependence between the individual and the group is grounded on the notion that “the individual is never an isolated, separate entity; man [human] is defined as a social or interactive being.”[12] Therefore, his/her speech, actions and thoughts must be exercised in light with other humans of the “group.” Such a demeanor is grounded in the understanding that it is only within the social context that a human can achieve jen (benevolence), a virtue which is “a source of admiration from and inspiration for one’s community” expressed metaphorically in a passage from the Analects (6/23)[13]

The Master said: “The wise find joy on the water, the good [that is, those who have jen] find joy in the mountains. The wise are active, the good [that is, those who have jen] are quiet. The wise are joyful, the good [that is, those who have jen] live long.”[14]

In other words, the individual can achieve fulfillment only when s(he) is in relationship with the “group.” In turn, this raises the question: How does s(he) conducts himself/herself in the “group” of which (s)he is a member? Rom. 14:1-15:13 in the wider framework of Romans poses such a challenge. However, an examination of the characteristics of the one who is “weak” and the one who “has faith” helps to clarify the conduct of members of the Christian community.

For me, the primary teaching of Rom. 14:1-15:13 is that it is appropriate to be different in the Christian community because all of us belong to Christ who is the Lord and Judge. Therefore, judging is not our prerogative. The dispute between the one who is “weak” and the one who “has faith”[15] gives ground for Paul to use his rhetorical skills and to disseminate his teaching regarding judgment. The foundational instruction which Paul laid down in 14:1, “and to the one who is weak with reference to (his or her) faith,[16] accept among you,”[17] paves the way for his line of argument and ultimately, to his purpose that is, to “accept one another” (15:7). Using the parallelisms of “eating or not eating” (14:2-4) and “observing and not observing” and interspersing them between 14:1 and 15:7, Paul seeks “to present each of the two positions which are competing with one another side by side in such a way that both remain equally related to Christ.”[18]

By defining the two groups as those who are “weak in faith” and others who are “strong in faith,” Paul was indirectly addressing a theological issue, namely “faith” as the crucial characteristic of the two opposing groups. Some scholars have concluded that the “weak” refers to Jewish Christians and those who “have faith” refers to the Roman Christians from Gentile background.[19] However, if the dispute is between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the Roman Christian community, should not Paul be more specific in his address? Why use the vague terms, “the weak in faith” and those who “have faith” (cf. 15:1)?[20] While some scholars define the identities of the opposing groups in terms of ethnic difference,[21] I will argue the vague use of terms by Paul is his way of addressing an issue beyond ethnic boundaries; it is “faith” that defines their identities (14:1-2, 22-3; cf. 15:1a).

The dispute that confronted the Roman Christian community apparently, arises from the condition of those who are “weak in faith” (th/| pi,stei) vis-à-vis those who “have faith.”[22] For Fitzmyer[23] and Cranfield,[24] “faith” does not refer to “belief” but to a conviction or assurance that leads to action. In other words, “faith” is understood as a concrete expression of belief, a “living and dynamic aspect of faith rather than the mere fact.”[25] Hence, the question “to eat or not to eat” and more importantly, “to judge” in Rom. 14:1-15:13 is based upon one’s conviction about certain practices. From this perspective, in his lengthy discourse (Rom. 1-8), Paul discusses the question of “faith,” among other theological concerns referring to the essence of Christianity, but at this point of his letter, he advances a concrete sense of faith. After expounding the characteristics of believers’ faith “in Christ” (Rom. 12), Paul proceeds to illustrate how believers should interact with others. In Rom. 13, he argues for the believers’ demeanor towards authorities who are appointed by God (13:2).

However, from my perspective, it is most important to note that Paul asserts here that all authority ultimately belongs to God (13:1) and therefore, both groups are under the authority of God. In other words, both groups are brought into a relationship in which each is accountable to the other. In a nutshell, from the beginning to the end Paul refers to the same faith—a faith which embraces a communal dimension. Therefore, the communal dimension of faith overrides the outward practices of believers, such as “to eat or not to eat.”

For Paul, “faith” is when a believer “recognizes and appropriates God’s saving work in Christ.”[26] S(he) accepts and believes that the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus is the way of salvation as ordained by God (1:5; 3:25; 10:17). “Faith” also means that the believer must make known that acceptance and belief by confessing it with his/her mouth (o`mologh,sh|j) (Rom. 10:9). In confession, s(he) turns away from himself/herself and confesses that Jesus Christ is his/her Savior and Lord. When the believer confesses Jesus as Lord (ku/rioj), s(he) affirms that the resurrection is the soteriological event through which Jesus becomes the ku/rioj (Rom. 4:24). In addition to his/her confession that Jesus is the resurrected Christ, s(he) must acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ in history. In a nutshell, his/her faith is founded upon the resurrected Christ and the historical Jesus.[27] Moreover, s(he) expresses that belief (pi/stij) and confession (o`mologi,a) in the act of baptism. Baptism is a demonstration that “we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Therefore, a personal relationship is established between the believer and Christ (Rom. 1:8; 6:8; 11:20).[28]

For a Chinese Christian believer, his/her acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior also means that new relationships are being established. One is with Jesus Christ, the other with other members of the community of faith. And personal relationship (kuan-hsi) is an important Chinese social phenomenon..[29] The notion of kuan-hsi for Chinese society is grounded in Confucian understanding that no human, as discussed at the beginning of this section, is an isolated entity. A human is a “relational” being. There are many kinds of relations of which the most fundamental are the five cardinal relations (wu-lun) which have been regarded as the basic standard of Chinese social order. The five cardinal relations and their tenor are: affection between parent and child; righteousness between ruler and subject; distinction between husband and wife; order between old and young; and sincerity between friends.[30] Of the five cardinal relations, three belong to the family and the other two are based upon the family model. The focus in these five cardinal relations is kuan-hsi (personal relationships) which in some ways, govern the conduct of oneself in that relationship.[31] It is inevitable that Chinese Christian community are affected by such patterns and structures of the Chinese social order.

In a preordained relation, such as the father-son cardinal relations, the status and responsibilities of the individual(s) are determined. However, under other non-preordained relation(s), the basis of kuan-hsi amongst the individuals depends on the existence of religious beliefs which becomes “a commonality of shared identification” of the individuals concerned.[32] Therefore, when a Chinese becomes a Christian (s)he, like many others in the community, enters into a voluntarily constructed relationships with others on the basis of their “shared identification,” that is their faith in Jesus Christ. Besides the “shared identification” of the individuals concerned, kuan-hsi entails a certain decorum, that is “to know and act on certain prescribed rules of behavior”[33] on the individuals of the relationship. Many have perceived that the individual in the Confucian value system is placed in an absolutely hierarchical context, but to the contrary, the role relationships were originally symmetrical and interdependent.[34] In other words, each individual is expected to perform his/her role according to propriety as prescribed by the kuan-hsi s(he) has with the other.[35]

Therefore, from the perspective of Chinese Christians, Rom. 14:1-15:13 is not primarily about “eating” or “observing” but about working out their kuan-hsi (personal relationship) on the basis of their “faith” in Jesus Christ. The “faith” of those who are “weak” and of those who “have faith” extend also when it “works itself out in knowledge of what [they have] to do in a given situation.”[36] Because of the knowledge that all will ultimately stand or fall before “their own lord” (14:4; cf. 14:22), and therefore, judging others is not within the perimeter of any believer. Paul, moreover, reiterates that whether people are “weak” or “have faith,” they are all God’s possession (Rom. 14:8ff) and the notion “possession” conveys the idea of belonging. Together with kuan-hsi, belonging becomes a strong and binding factor that holds the community together as well as the link of the community to God.

Jesus Christ’s kuan-hsi with his community

Having elucidated the theological question of “faith,” Paul proceeds to use Jesus Christ as an illustration to argue for Jesus Christ’s relationship (kuan-hsi) with his believers and its basis for inclusivity within the community of faith. What might be considered as a minor matter, Paul treats with severity because of the threat it poses to divide the church. For Paul, “fellowship among Christians is not to be based on questioning and disputing, toward the result that the one adopts the other’s view and accepts it as the norm of action. Such a sameness is not a Christian ideal … [D]ifference is proper.”[37] The one who is “weak” as well as the one who “has faith” should be allowed to be who s(he) is and act as s(he) does because the Christian community is big enough to include both groups. Paul has already argued such a stance towards any issue in Rom. 2:1ff. – a point which remains even if for many commentators, w= a;nqrwpe pa/j o` kri,nwn (“whoever you are, the judging one”) referred to the Jew (cf. 2:17).[38] Paul argued that God’s impartial judgment falls on all, regardless whether one is a Jew or a Greek (Rom. 2:1-11; 12-16; 17-24; 25-29; 3:1-9; 10-20).[39] Furthermore, Christ’s death and resurrection are evidences that he is the “Lord of both the dead and the living,” summed up in the confession that “every knee shall bow” to him (14:11). In referring to Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom. 14:9), Paul reiterates the sovereignty of God. Whether the believers live or die, they under the authority of Christ, because Christ who underwent “death for our salvation … has acquired authority over us which cannot be destroyed by death, and by raising again, he has received our whole life as his peculiar property.”[40] On the account that God is sovereign, “we are not only forbidden rashly to attempt this or that without God’s command, but we are also commanded to be patient under all troubles and losses.”[41] In sum, regardless whether believers are “weak” or “have faith,” they all “belong to and must acknowledge their relation to God as Kyrios”[42] (14:8) as well as belonging to one another.

In fact, three kuan-hsi are established. One is between the believer and God because “one belongs to the Lord through faith” and the other is among the believers, “faith is the thing that is true of all Christians, the fact that unites them all, be they weak or strong in that faith.”[43] The third kuan-hsi is the one established between the community of faith and God (15:5,6). In the kuan-hsi between the believer and God, Christ’s passion, death and resurrection, confirmed by Scriptures (14:9; 15:3, 8ff.) bear evidence of Christ’s lordship over the believer. On the part of the believer, s(he) honors his/her role in that relationship by accepting the authority of the Lord. The kuan-hsi between the believer and the other(s) in the community, on the other hand, is likened to that between the older brother and the younger brother and where the tenor of the relationship is sincerity and respect.

Using the terms of dying and living, Paul directs the one who is “weak” and the one who “has faith” that their dying is relational, no longer “without regard for [his/her] fellow brothers and sisters in faith”[44] (14:7). The reason is because their kuan-hsi relationship constrains them to do so. Therefore whether one dies or lives in the community, all is affected by the action. Besides, each no longer live to himself/herself; (s)he lives for his/her Lord, and Christ lives in him/her. If Christ is the Lord of the believer’s life, then s(he) is no longer judged by human beings, “And you, why do you ostracize your brother or your sister? And you also, why do you despise your brother or your sister?”[45] In judging the other, the believer not only brings judgment upon himself/herself from God but also places the whole community in the judgment seat of God. When God establishes kuan-hsi with the believer(s), God implicitly establishes kuan-hsi with the whole community because of their relationship to the other grounded in their faith in Jesus Christ who is the judge of all (14:10).

Kuan-hsi and Judging in the community

In a situation where different opinions take place, the tendency to despise or to cast judgment on the others is to be expected, just like in the Roman Christian community. However, the question one poses is: On what basis do people who judge have the authority to do so? According to Paul, the answer is neither party has the right to do so. The rhetorical questions, the parallelisms, and the “conduct of Christ, a way of life …. [d]esignated in the Scripture”[46] (14:4, 10; cf. 2:3-4; 21-23; 3:1-9), undergird Paul’s argument that members of the community should endure and accept the other (15:3-6)[47] for all[48] will take their places[49] before the judgment seat of God[50] (14:10,12; cf. 2:3 “when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed”). No one should assume that s(he) will be exempted from the judgment of God. On the contrary (s)he will be asked not to give account for his/her “faith in Jesus Christ” but also for the outworkings of his/her faith, how s(he) was a Christian. In a word, s(he) will have to give an account of his/her stewardship in light of the “now” (14:4-6) and “then” (14:10-11)[51] to God whose judgment is righteous (2:5; 11, 16). God’s righteous judgment is explicit for God will repay all humans according to their attitudes (2:1-11), but because of God’s goodness and patience (2:4), humans were given time to repent and be justified on Christ alone (5:9, 10, 8:33; 14:9).[52]

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah reveals the impartial righteousness of the one God who shows no respect for human distinctions (3:26), whether one is a Jew or a Gentile. God’s impartial righteousness has to be matched only by the “faith” of the believer, not outward practices. At the very onset of the letter, Paul discussed and emphasized this very important and fundamental theological aspect of God. It is the righteousness from God which is the “new way of salvation which God had opened through Christ.”[53] Paul argues that even the Jew who with his/her special gifts and received promises (3:1, 9:4-5; 11 passim) can only established his/her own righteousness on the basis of the “righteousness from God.” In other words, it “was that righteousness, which can be enacted only by the God who characteristically makes something out of nothing, which Abraham obtained by his trust (Rom. 4).”[54] There is no distinction or separation, diastolh/ between Jew and Gentile in the community of faith because God’s impartial judgment renders such distinctions invalid: “It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?” (8:33b-34a). Therefore, if there is any boasting, on the part of the Jew over the Gentile (3:27) and also the Gentile over the Jew (11:18), Paul reiterates that all humans are finite. They are unable to comprehend the “mind of the Lord” and have not been the Lord’s counselor (11:34). Therefore, by whose standards and authority can they dispense their judgment? Paul’s answer is that no one is in the position to judge. Moreover, the act of “judging one another that divide the people of God run directly contrary to the universal judgment of the one God”[55] (14:1-15:13).

The fact that “when people set themselves to judge others, they stretch forth their hand to something which God has reserved to himself [Godself] and to Christ,”[56] with the knowledge that all judgments rest upon God, they reveal their “human finitude.” This “human finitude” is demonstrated in the Roman Christian community that was being bound by the traditions and practices and also taking pride in holding fast to them, for example the “weak” who eats only vegetables (14:2). The one who is “weak” is concerned with “deeds and facts.”[57] Lest the one who “has faith” think that s(he) is without fault, Paul warns him/her that she is also finite. S(he) might think that s(he) has attained “freedom of conscience” and therefore, can act as (s)he pleases. According to Barth, this is human illusion, because by making “freedom of conscience” to a concrete thing, that is “to eat or not to eat,” or “to observe or not to observe,” the one who “has faith” is not “free from legalism.” By ‘concretizing’ his/her “freedom of conscience,” the one who “has faith” reveals his/her frailty too, with reference to the “weak.”[58] In summary, both their positions are weak because they are their positions that are based on their faith and according to their lives. In short, they are not absolute, eternal and infinite. The critical truth is that before the Lord, there is no distinction as to whether s(he) is “the weak” or the one who “has faith,” for both will stand as HUMANS, both “from the same embarrassment and from the same hope.”[59] Both the one who is “weak” and the one who “has faith” are both equal before God because of God’s sovereignty. Human finitude reinforces human frailty and therefore, reveals that our judgment is weak and defective precisely because we are mere HUMANS.

As already explained, the individual in the Chinese society is never separate from the “group” because s(he) is a “relational being” and his/her kuan-hsi with the other is important. In any relational context, “the individual’s relations with the others are neither independent nor dependent but interdependent. Thus, the individual self is not totally submerged in the relationships. On the contrary, the individual has considerable social and psychological space for action.”[60] In other words, s(he) has the capacity to pass judgment and sever the relationship with the others because of their failure to perform his/her part in the established relationship.[61] However, I argue that because s(he) is interdependent with others, (s)he cannot do so. Moreover, to judge the other with the consequences that there would be disharmony and dissension within the community is contradictory to what Chinese esteem, “the adjusted equilibrium and social harmony.”[62] For example, the family will not thrive or prosper lest there is social harmony. Given that the Chinese social order is patterned after the family models, “harmony became the touchstone for all interpersonal behavior”[63] and be maintained in spite of differences.

In light of Rom. 14:1-15:13, the people who are “weak in faith” and others who are “strong in faith” have established a kuan-hsi on the basis of their faith in Jesus Christ and not upon outward practices of “eating” or “observing.” In other words, it is a collective relationship where the two groups are responsible to the other. Therefore, they are constrained to live in harmony and for the mutual upbuilding of each other (14:15-16, 19; 15:2). To expel the others who are different moreover, would go against God’s purpose which is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (14:17) and disrupt the social harmony of the Christian community. Consequently, instead of judging the others in the forensic sense, the others are ostracized or marginalized while both groups still remain in the community.[64] In summary, the Chinese Christian cannot separate himself/herself from his/her community and to judge entails ostracizing or marginalizing the other. However, the admonition is “Do not ostracize the other,” regardless of his/her orientation.

CLOSING VIGNETTE

Many feminist biblical critics and scholars might be disappointed that I did not engage any strategies from the field of feminist criticism to read Rom. 14:1-15:13 and that my reading is not feminist per se. I must admit that this is intentional and for a purpose. As one Asian Chinese Christian woman, I regard the notion of community, whether it is family, church or society with utmost importance. Such high regard for community is derived from Confucian understanding that the human is an interactive being. A human must be in a relational context which is interdependent in order to achieve his/her benevolence (jen). In such a relational context, the focus is on personal relationship (kuan-hsi). For me, by using the notion of kuan-hsi in light of the individual and the community from the Chinese perspective, I sought to show the inclusivity of its implications. In other words, instead of constructing binomial opposites of “Self” and “Other” and their characteristics, the notion of kuan-hsi diffuses its opposites and the attention is directed to the community as a whole. Therefore, whether one is a female or male, whether one is from the First World or from the ‘Rest of the World,” one is intrinsically related to all the others within the community, upholding and bearing responsibility for the other. Hence, the broad use of kuan-hsi with the communal dimension assists such a celebration of differences.

However, I am aware that some feminist biblical critics and theologians are wary that in my so doing, Chinese women might be submerged in the Chinese social order that is perceived as patriarchal. My argument is that the five cardinal relations, whether the one between the husband and wife or the one between the elder and the younger, they are equal and interdependent. Each party is expected to perform his/her role according to propriety (li) but if one party fails to honor his/her responsibilities, opposition is expected from the other party. In light of this brief argument, Chinese women therefore, are active participants in a relationship. A paper that focuses upon li (propriety) in relations would further elucidate my argument but this calls for another occasion.

My reading of Rom. 14:1-15:13 in the wider framework of the letter demonstrates that “to eat or not to eat,” “to observe or not to observe” is a secondary issue. The issue is how relationships (kuan-hsi) affect “judging” the others in the community in which believers come with diverse opinions and/or from different ethnic and religious backgrounds. The text teaches about living together under the lordship of Jesus Christ who is also the judge of us all. Therefore, we should not judge the other who is different but accept each other (14:13, 15:2, 5, 7) because God’s impartial righteousness in Christ is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.

Some eleven years ago, when my small congregation of about forty members in Singapore underwent a division because of leadership and theological matters of which one of them is “to eat or not to eat,” an important and fundamental question was raised, What has gone wrong with our kuan-hsi? Moreover, the division distressed many because it created social disharmony amongst members of the community, contrary to Chinese concern for social order. Therefore, instead of expelling the others on the basis of judgment which might cause social disorder in the community, the Chinese Christian ostracizes or marginalizes the other, and keeping him/her still in the community. However, on the basis of their “faith in Jesus Christ” in which a personal relationship (kuan-hsi) is established between them, judging is henceforth, not appropriate. By judging others, believers also judge themselves before God who is the ultimate Judge. Moreover, God celebrates difference, exemplified in God’s offer of salvation to all who believe and accept Jesus as Savior and Lord.

In a pluralistic society such as Singapore, first generation Singapore Christians, in addition to their other religious, cultural and racial identities, receive a distinctive identity because of their faith in Jesus Christ: we are Chinese (or Indians or Malays) and we are Christians who have faith in Jesus Christ. Having faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that one has to abandon one’s cultural, religious and ethnic traditions but rather to act on the basis of theological assumptions that all human beings “belong to God and that God may be served in a variety of ways.”[65] At one of the plenary sessions, Chung Hyun Kyung at the World Council of Churches Seventh Assembly at Canberra in 1991 used the ancient religious tradition of her homeland, South Korea to restate her faith in the power of the Holy Spirit.[66] Her challenge was clear: God can be served in one’s religious traditions. For Chinese Christians, the Confucian perspective of the individual and community enlarges one’s hermeneutical approach to reading the text which in turn becomes Scriptures for its readers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated from sixth edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933).

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Translated by J. Owen. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948).

Cranfield, C. E. B. The International Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd., 1979).

Dunn, James. D. G. Word Biblical Commentary, Rom. 9-16. (Dallas: Word Books, 1988).

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Anchor Bible. Romans. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (New York: Doubleday, 1993).

Hall, David L. and Roger T. Ames, Thinking Through Confucius (Albany: State University of New Yor Press, 1987).

Kingston, Maxine Hong. The Woman Warrior. Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts (New York: Vintage International Edition, 1989).

Kinnamon, Michael, ed. World Council of Churches. Signs of the Spirit. Official Report Seventh Assembly. Canberra, Australia, 7-20 February 1991 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1991).

Leys, Simon. The Analects of Confucius. Translation and Notes (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997).

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949).

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994).

Walters, James C. Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993).

ARTICLES

Buchsel, Herntrich. “Kri/nw” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. III. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translator and Editor: Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965): 921-954.

Bultmann, Weiser. “Pisteu/w” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. VI. Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Translator and Editor: Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publsing Co., 1968): 174-228.

Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “Romans” in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol A. Newsome and Sharon H. Ringe, Sharon H. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992): 313-320.

Grenholm, Cristina and Daniel Patte. “Overtures” in Reading Israel in Romans. Edited by Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte (Valley Forge: Trinity International Press, 2000): 1-54.

Huntington, Samuel. “The Clash of Civilizations?” in Foreign Affairs Vol. 72 No. 3: 22-37.

Karris, Robert J. “Rom. 14:1-15:13 and the Occasion of Romans” in CBQ 34/2 April (1973): 155-178.

King, Ambrose Y. C. “The Individual and Group in Confucianism: A Relational Perspective” in Individualism and Holism: Studies in Confucian and Taoist Values. Edited by Donald J. Munro (Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, The University of Michigan, 1985): 57-70.

_________________ “Kuan-hsi and Network Building: A Sociological Interpretation” in The Living Tree. The Changing Meaning of Being Chinese Today. Edited by Tu Wei-ming (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994): 109-126.

King Ambrose Y. C. and Michael H. Bond. “The Confucian Paradigm of Man: A Sociological View” in Chinese Culture and Mental Health. Edited by Wen-Shing Tseng and David Y. H. Wu (New York: Academic Press, 1985): 29-45.

Meeks, Wayne. “Judgment and the Brother: Romans 14:1-15:13” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. Essays in honor of E. Earle Ellis. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne with Otto Betz, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987): 290-300.

Singapore. Facts and Figures, 1997. (Singapore: Ministry of Arts and Information,1997).

-----------------------

[1] Huntington, Samuel, “The Clash of Civilizations?” in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72 No. 3, 22.

[2] Some examples are “minjung theology” advocated by Korean theologians, the “dalit theology” by Indian theologians and “the liberation of struggle” by Filipino theologians.

[3] Grenholm and Patte introduce Scriptural Criticism that uses the contextual frame, as well as the hermeneutical and analytical frames in the elucidation of a text, see the section “Overtures” in Reading Israel in Romans, ed. Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte (Valley Forge: Trinity International Press, 2000), 1-54.

[4] “Singapore. Facts and Figures, 1997,” 4. As at June 1996, the population of Singapore is made up of three main ethnic groups, namely the Chinese who makes up 77.3% of the population, the Malays 14.1%, the Indians 7.3% and the balance 1.3% comprise of people of other ethnic groups, e.g. Eurasians, Japanese, Europeans. Each ethnic group has its own language, culture and religion which often defines their identity. The Chinese embrace what is termed as Chinese religions (that is, Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism), the Malays Islam and the Indians Hinduism. The majority of Christians are from the Chinese ethnic group.

[5] The eating of food offered to idols is not contrary to Scriptures because “no idols in the world really exists” (1 Cor. 8:4).

[6] Dawn’s ‘conversion’ to Christianity is not an exception. There are other ‘converted’ Christians whose family background are non-Christian, such as the Indians. The majority of the Indians are Hindus. Dawn is a member of a Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Singapore.

[7] Confucius emphasized paying homage to ancestors. Qing Ming (All Souls Day) becomes an occasion for the worship of ancestors. Originally, Qing Ming was a celebration of spring, falling in early April, 106 days after the winter solstice. It was more of a picnic than a festival when families go to their ancestors’ cemeteries and tidy the graves, place red candles and joss-sticks on the stone altars, and offer food, drinks and flowers. After the worship, the food and wine are in turn consumed by the offerers. On other occasions, these offerings are placed before ancestral tablets in the home’s family altar. Ancestral tablets are usually small wooden boards inscribed with birth and death dates. This altar will include the ancestors’ names and photographs. Ancestor worship are performed on occasions such as the birth and death dates of the ancestors, the Lunar Chinese New Year, the 15th day of the Hungry Ghosts Month.

[8] Currently, I am on “leave of absence” from the church.

[9] See John 13:34-35 “….. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

[10] King, Ambrose Y. C., “The Individual and Group in Confucianism: A Relational Perspective” in Individualism and Holism: Studies in Confucian and Taoist Values. Edited by Donald J. Munro (Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, The University of Michigan, 1985), 57-70. See also his work, “Kuan-hsi and Network Building: A Sociological Interpretation” in The Living Tree. The Changing Meaning of Being Chinese Today. Edited by Tu Wei-Ming (Stanford: Standford University Press, 1994), 109-126.

[11] Ibid., 61. According to Confucians, human community is classified into three categories: the individual; the family; and the group. The notion of “group” is ambiguous and hence, “shifting.” The family can be defined as a “group.” However, the boundary of the family is quite elusive because it can includes members of the immediate family but also can include members belonging to the same lineage or clan.

[12] Ibid., 111. King cites Charles A. Moore, “Introduction: The Humanistic Chinese Mind,” in The Chinese Mind. Edited by C. A. Moore. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1967).

[13] Hall, David L. and Roger T. Ames, Thinking Through Confucius (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987),114.

[14] Leys, Simon, The Analects of Confucius. Translation and Notes. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997), 27. The translations in the parentheses are mine.

[15] Paul Minear speculates that the Roman church was not an unified church but comprised of different communities “brought into existence at diverse times, by diverse leaders, with diverse conceptions of the Gospel” (7). Furthermore, Paul sought to bring reconciliation to these communities by using twelve axioms, for example, “God has welcomed him/her” (Rom. 14:3). (The Obedience to Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. SBT 2/19; [London: SCM, 1971]).

[16] (1) Dunn, James D. G., Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 38b. Romans 9-16 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 798. “The one who is weak” is a pejorative description. It describes the person’s failure “to trust God completely and without qualification.” In other words, s(he) is dependent upon outward practices as his/her qualification of faith.

[17] (1) Ibid., 798. I concur with Dunn’s that the term parala/mbanomai has the force of “receive or accept into one’s society, home, circle of acquaintance”. I would further reiterate that the translation “ “accept among you” conveys a concrete expression of approval and favor on the part of the community and hence, entails responsibility on each other.

[18] Stuhlmacher, Peter, Paul’s Letter to the Romans. A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 222.

[19] See footnote 15. Unlike Minear, Willie Marxsen argues that the dispute confronting the Roman Christian community is no longer a question of Jewish Christian trying to impose Jewish customs on the rest since there is no Jewish prohibition of eating meat or drinking wine. Rather, the conflict is between “Christians of different background, no longer concerned about dietary or calendaric regulations, over which the “weak,” those of Jewish background and closely related to Jerusalem Jewish Christians, still had concern.” (Cited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Vol. 33 [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 77-78).

[20] Fitzmyer, Romans, 78.

[21] Ibid., 78. Fitzmyer argues that Paul was directing to a theological issue, that is, “all human beings need the gospel, for all are under sin” and therefore, was directing against those who profess to be Christians and having been Jews, still trusted in their circumcision as guarantee for salvation (cf. Rom. 2-3).

[22] The relative pronoun of o]j and the participle avsqenw/n in the Greek text of Rom. 14:2 are in the singular but I have translated them to plural to express the inclusiveness and communal dimension of the community.

[23] Ibid., 688-689.

[24] Cranfield, C.E.B., The International Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. II. Commentary on Romans 9-16 and Essays. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd., 1979), 698, 700.

[25] Bultmann, Weiser, “pisteu/w” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 6.Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965), 212.

[26] Ibid., 207.

[27] Ibid., 211.

[28] Ibid., 217-222. Bultmann gives a synopsis of pi/stij? and pisteu/w in Paul, that is, Paul and the common Christian concept of faith; and The Pauline concept of faith in contrast to that of Judaism.

[29] King, “Kuan-hsi and Network Building: A Sociological Interpretation,” 109-126.

[30] King, “The Individual and Group in Confucianism,” 58.

[31] King, “Kuan-hsi and Network Building: A Sociological Interpretation,” 111. King quotes Liang Sou-ming, Chung-ku weh-hua yao-I (The essential features of Chinese culture) (Hong Kong: Chi-cheng T’u-shu Kung-ssu, 1974), 94.

[32] Ibid., 115. King cites the work of Chie Nakane who asserts that “Chinese group consciousness is formed on a set of criteria (attributes) – such as kinship, native place, dialect, religious belief.” (Nakane, Chie, Japanese Society [New York: Penguin, 1970:1).

[33] Silin, Robert H., Leadership and Values (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), 43 quoted by Ambrose Y. C. King in “Kuan-hsi and Network Building,” 120.

[34] King, “The Individual and Group in Confucianism,” 58. However, the hsiao concept (filial piety) later became the central focus of the Chinese ethical system and the individual is submerged into the familistic ethics. Hence, the symmetrical father-son relation became asymmetrical in nature.

[35] King, Ambrose Y. C. and Michael H. Bond., “The Confucian Paradigm of Man: A Sociological View*” in Chinese Culture and Mental Health. Edited by Wen-Shing Tseng and David Y. H. Wu (New York: Academic Press, 1985), footnote 2. In a symmetrical relationship, if one party fails to perform his/her required role, it is legitimate for him/her to oppose.

[36] Buschel, TDNT Vol. 6, 218.

[37] Nygren, Anders, Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949), 443-444.

[38] Fitzmyer, Romans, 297.

[39] Ibid., 296-297.

[40] Ibid., 500.

[41] Calvin, John, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Translated by J. Owens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 499-500.

[42] Fitzmyer, Romans, 691.

[43] Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 444-446. Nygren notes that Paul did not take the position of either ‘the weak’ or ‘the strong’ because if he did, he would be giving signals that to be a “Christian would have meant to follow certain outward usages, to eat or not to eat.”

[44] Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 221.

[45] “Sister” is added in the translation to make the language of the text inclusive (NRSV). In light of this paper, the term “sister” is important as it suggests that the issue encountered by the community that comprised of male and female believers. According to Cranfield, Paul addresses first the one who is “weak” and then the one who “has faith” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. II., 709.).

[46] Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 229.

[47] According to Dunn, Paul’s emphasis of positive consideration of others (15:5) is a “necessary structural contrast to the presumption (emphasis mine) of both Jew and Gentile attacked (cf. Rom. 11:18-20; 12:16) (Word Biblical Commentary, 836). However, I would argue that the contrast is directed to the issue of judging rather than the case of ethnic identity.

[48] Ibid., 809. The pa/ntej has weight, that is, given the place of emphasis. It is an inclusive term that includes the one is “weak” or the one “has faith.”

[49] Ibid., 808-809. The term pari/sthmi is attested in other portions of the New Testament (Acts 27:24; 1 Cor. 8:8; 2 Cor. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:17) with the “judicial technical sense of appearing in court before a judge.”

[50] (1) Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 709. The idea of standing before the judgment seat of God is a “powerful dissuasive from all sitting in judgment on one’s fellows.”

[51] Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, 809.

[52] Buchsel, Herntrich, “kri/nw” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 3. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated and Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), 938.

[53] Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 9-15.

[54] Meeks, Judgment and the Brother, 296.

[55] Ibid., 297.

[56] Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 445.

[57] Barth, Karl, The Epistle to the Romans. Translated from sixth edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 508. Barth cites examples from the Greek period through the Middle Ages where the church was bound to such traditions and practices. Barth concludes, “But now we can understand also both the grandeur of the Catholic system and the dignity of the rigorous Reformation ethic … the tragedy which is bound up with it all.”

[58] Ibid., 507-509.

[59] Ibid., 514.

[60] King, “The Individual and Group in Confucianism,” 63.

[61] Ibid., 62. King argues that the Chinese social order is built upon “the concept of lun …a set of rules governing social relations.”

[62] Ibid., 62.

[63] King, “The Confucian Paradigm of Man,” 34.

[64] Kingston, Maxine Hong, The Woman Warrior. Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts (New York: Vintage International Edition, 1989). In the chapter, “No Name Woman,” Kingston narrates an account that happened in the early 1920s to her aunt who was impregnated by a man who was not her husband, and having been found out later by her family and the village was ostracized. She was made to sit at an “outcast table” for her meals even though she must have lived in the same house as her parents (7).

[65] Gaventa, Beverly Roberts, “Romans” in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol A. Newsome and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 319.

[66] Kinnamon, Michael, ed., World Council of Churches. Signs of the Spirit. Official Report Seventh Assembly. Canberra, Australia, 7-20 February 1991 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1991), 37-47.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download