All We Are Saying is Give Peace a Chance: Evolution and Romans 14-15by Ken Wilson

N.T. Wright acknowledges what we sometimes don’t: that he (and possibly we) can be wrong without knowing it. “The point of discourse is to learn with and from one another. I used to tell my students that at least 20 percent of what I was telling them was wrong, but I didn’t know which 20 percent it was; I make many mistakes in life, in relationships, and in work, and I don’t expect to be free of them in my thinking.”1

Humility, in other words, is an intellectual virtue. Do we need convincing that this virtue is lacking in much that passes as Christian discourse in the age of social media and culture war polarities?

What if those of us who are less adept than N.T. Wright in matters of Christian thinking, ecclesiology, and practice were to assume that we were wrong no less than 20 percent of the time? Wouldwe be more gentle in our disagreements, more inclined to extend to each other the benefit of thedoubt, and more generous in our full of acceptance of each other, as is? Would this, in fact, be a more powerful witness to the gospel in the face of a fraying social fabric than our being a little more right than we are? 1 Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, by N.T. Wright (IVP Aacademic, 2009), p. 20

1

This paper proposes the recovery of a long neglected Pauline category, “disputable matters,” set forth in Romans 14-15 as a framework for staying together in full community when we disagreeover very serious matters of Christian practice. Asa case study, it proposes application of this category to the question of whether a faithful Christian may accept evolutionary science, and moreto the point, be fully accepted within the church community, as is.

DISPUTABLE MATTERS

Four matters concern us: 1. Understanding Romans 14-15 in the context of Paul’s epistle to the Romans; 2. Determining whether disputable matters are matters of indifference (gk. adiaphora) or something much more consequential, 3. Developing criteria for disputable matters, and 4. Fleshing out the implications of designating a matter “disputable.”

Romans 14-15 in the context of the epistle to the Romans

As Wright, Dunn, and others assert, the old view that the epistle to the Romans can be neatly divided into the Pauline gospel section (chapters 1-8), a sidebar discussion of the role of Israel inrelation to the church (chapters 9-11), and miscellaneous applications and exhortations (chapters 12-16) is misleading. Instead, Romans is viewed as a unity. In particular, Romans 14-15 are

2

understood as the point to which Paul has been driving, a culmination rather than an afterthought.

While this “new perspective” has been around for a generation, in theological time it is still very young. The implications are just being pressed out.Therefore, we might expect that Romans 14-15 would be a relatively underappreciated part of Paul’s letter—a consequence of regarding it as peripheral rather than integral.

The newer perspective on Romans is corrective to what might be regarded as the blinding effects of “Gentile privilege” in the church dating back to the marginalization of her Jewish voice in the second century (or even earlier.) By the time of Reformation the vacuum created by this marginalization had been filled by rank anti-Semitism. Hence, the church has been blind to the significance of the Pauline vision of the uniting of Jew and Gentile in Christ as a sign of the gospel’s power suitable to the reality of his resurrection. We glance around in our Christian assemblies and find no Jews with which to unite. Orthe scattered few we do find (perhaps even celebrate) have adapted to Gentile ways—abandoning kosher and Sabbath observance as essential marks ofJewish identity.2 No power is therefore needed to

2 For an example of a contemporary and thoroughly Jewish voice in the Jesus movement, see Postmissionary Messianic

Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People, by Mark S. Kinzer Brazos Press, 2005.

3

bridge what in Paul’s day was often understood to be an unbridgeable divide, sans the gospel.

If we could imagine ourselves part of a church rifewith tensions between robust Jewish and Gentile factions (replete with their own internal variations), wondering how to maintain unity acrosssuch a cultural, theological, sociological, and moral chasm, we might read the letter quite differently.

We would appreciate the challenge of Romans 9-11 and its exhortation for the Gentile members of the community, newly ascendant in the church and already accustomed to their privileged status as Romans in the Roman Empire, to practice humility toward their Jewish brothers and sisters. We wouldread Romans 12-13 as an impassioned appeal to practice faithful love in the face of such acute tensions. We might then be startled to find Paul, apostle to the Gentiles yet thoroughly Jewish in training, thought, and sensibility, asserting that some of the most contentious matters between the rival groups are in fact, matters about which we are enjoined to agree to disagree, rather than fight until one side wins. We might chafe at the command to extend gospel embrace—full acceptance and inclusion—to those we might otherwise regard aswolves in sheep’s clothing. This would all be felt as a death to the self that most recoils from crucifixion, the religious self, conceived in Eden’s garden at the base of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

4

We would, in other words, be hearing Romans 14-15 on the edge of our seats or standing in angry protest or slumped in baffled reflection. Paul’s paean of praise that serves as the emotionaland theological culmination of the letter, his priestly offering of the united Jewish-Gentile assembly would, perhaps, fall on deaf ears until wehad sorted out the meaning of Paul’s message regarding disputable matters.

Disputable Matters: Matters of Indifference or Serious Moral Concerns?

It is common for commentators to conflate Paul’s term “disputable matters” (Gk. diakrisis, dialogismos) with a term borrowed from Stoic philosophy and adopted by later Christian theologians, “matters of indifference” (Gk. adiophora). Is this an enlightening or obscuring conflation? I would argue the latter.

N.T. Wright’s discussion of adiphora in his Romans commentary3 reveals the confusion in thought raised by the conflation.

In his Reflections section (the aspect of his commentary that comes closest to offering pastoral reflections for the contemporary situation) Wright introduces the term, “matters of indifference” identifying it as arriving in later theology, but

3 The New Interpreters Bible, The Letter to the Romans: Introduction. Commentary, and Reflections by N.T. Wright, pp. 748-750

5

then applies it as if it is more or less equivalentto Paul’s “disputable matters.”

“Most Christians agree would agree that there are such “indifferent” matters, but the difficulty is that there is no agreement on what those matters are and on which matters areso centrally important that to disagree on themmeans dividing the church. Paul clearly believed that there were many things on which it was not a matter of saying, “one person believes this, another believes that”; when it was reported that a Corinthian Christian had set up with his father’s wife, his reactions was not that he should be welcomed as a weaker believer but that he should be kicked out on the spot (1 Cor. 5: 15);4 the whole chapter is important, distinguishing as it does between the importance of continuing to have dealings with the pagan world and the importance of breaking off relations with Christians who behave in grossly pagan ways.” One may imagine that for some of the “weaker” Christians in Rome the idea of eating meat that had not been certified as kosher, or that had been offered to idols, would seem just as “pagan” and hence evil as sexual immorality; indeed, granted the connection between idol-worship and licentious

4 We should note, however that in 1 Corinthians Paul is alsoat pains to say that even the Gentiles regard such an actionas scandalous; his condemnation of the deed is connected to this scandal, which brings unwarranted opprobrium to the gospel, a different situation than the matters at hand in the Roman church.

6

orgies, one can understand their point of view.But what Paul is doing here is in fact to articulate not only his own view that there aresome “things indifferent” that should not divide the church but also his view as to what some of the key ones are.”

It’s an uncharacteristically sloppy move on Wright’s part. Rather than compare and contrast theconcept of adiaphora, matters of indifference, withPaul’s concept, disputable matters, Wright simply conflates them without justifying the conflation.

But this is precisely the question. Matters of indifference, by inference if not definition, don’tmatter. We are indifferent to the differences. But are these the sort of matters that Paul selected asexamples of “disputable matters”? According to Wright and others, the issues referred to in Romans14 were arguably first order moral concerns of their time. They were issues that warranted two chapters in his letter to the Roman house churhces,on the verge or in the midst of dividing over them.Today “matters of indifference” might include once controversial concerns which are now no longer regarded as such—the playing of card games, dancing, or going to the movies come to mind. Wright’s work to illuminate the matters that Paul obliquely refers to (from the perspective of our sketching knowledge of his context rich meaning) supports the notion that, in their time, these were notat all “matters of indifference.”

7

As we do the hard work of discerning what our “disputable matters” might be today, this is a critically important question: Is Paul’s category meant to apply primarily to yesterday’s resolved controversies or today’s unresolved ones? Does his category apply to matters which threaten the unity of the church today precisely because they pertain to matters that are on the level of eating meat sacrificed to idols (what charismatic or evangelical Christian would feel comfortable with eating meat that regarded as having been sacrificedto demons today?) Or not?

Wright’s conflation of two different terms with twodifferent meanings in their respective contexts does not illuminate this critical question. Ratherit muddles and obscures the matter.

Wright, with others5, argues for a robust reading ofPaul’s disputable matters. Candidates for first order moral concerns in their day include eating meat sacrificed to idols and Sabbath observance (the latter, in violation of the fourth commandmentand the order of nature established in Genesis 1.) While these were in their time “cultural boundary markers,” (what hotly contested moral issues are

5 Notably James Dunn who helpfully summarizes, “The issue which confronts Paul here is not a slight or casual one. Those who think he was making too much fuss over peculiarities of diet (simply a matter for a few vegetarians), or particular feast days (one or two more holydays), have completely missed the point. The issue was far more serious than that.” (Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, p.811)

8

not?) the fact remains that they were contentious precisely because a good case could be made for their first order status. If they are not debatableissues then it can be argued that participation in such practices takes one outside the camp; one could argue that exclusionary practices aimed at those who do them (or perhaps condone them in others) are justified. In this understanding, the exclusionary practices don’t divide the church. Those who participate in the practices or condone them do.

A modest proposal for discerning when a matter is “disputable”

As Wright notes, whether a matter is properly regarded as disputable in the Pauline sense is likely a matter that generates its own dispute.6 Communities are messy places. Nevertheless, each one is responsible to discern such matters under the leading of the Holy Spirit, guided by the wisdom of Scripture.

Discernments of this kind are generally rendered holistically. That is, a myriad of factors are considered. And it is wise to recognize that as human beings in community, we are powerfully influenced by factors that are not consciously considered, imbedded as we are in our social matrices. In humility, we are wise to admit that many of our decisions are made by the emotional

6 Wright, New Interpreters Bible, Romans, p. 738

9

brain and justified by the rational brain.7 The morewilling we are to admit this, the more likely we are to not be completely ruled by this dynamic, giving space to the Sprit and the wisdom of Scripture to affect us at both the rational and emotional levels.

This being the case, no collection of criteria can be expected to make the discernments easy, especially in the face of hotly contested controversies—which seem to be the ones that occasioned Romans 14-15. Still, they can help.

Elsewhere, I have proposed criteria as a starting point at least.8 Communities are free to reject, subtract, add to, or alter these. But the consideration of criteria itself will give space for reflection and hopefully, the Spirit’s leading.

Reasonable criteria might include the following: 1. Is the matter in dispute outside the realm of Christian dogma as defined in the great ecumenical creeds? 2. Does the dispute involve two or more biblical truths brought into dynamic tension so that both parties make reasonable appeals to Scripture, rather than simply dismissing Scripture?3. Does careful attention to the linguistic-cultural-historical-literary context of Scripture open up varying interpretive possibilities? 4. Do (otherwise) faithful Christians take different 7 See The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt, Vintage, 20128 See, A Letter to My Congregation, by Ken Wilson, David Crumm Media 2014, pp. 104-110

10

views on the matter? 5. Does recognizing a matter as “disputable” advance the mission of the church?

The Implications of designating a matter “disputable”

The genius of Paul’s approach to “disputable matters” lies in his respect for the passionately held convictions of both “the strong” and “the weak.”9 Paul, we know, had a subtle and high view ofhuman conscience. For a person to violate his or her conscience, even when the conscience, in his view, was poorly formed, was a violation of the person. Paul also understood the subjective nature of the conscience—it’s being an aspect of the person bound by his or her community, time, and a limited and sometimes broken discernment apparatus.A clear conscience was not a sure sign that he or she wasn’t guilty before God (and presumably the reverse was also true.)

Paul was not seeking to resolve the dispute—a telling move on his part, given his willingness to wade into other disputes with apostolic authority 9 Those who offended what were probably sensibilities more prevalent in the returning Jewish wing of the Roman church, were designated “the strong” in Paul’s framework. What Paul meant by this designation is unclear. Commentators suggest that social status may have been in view as much as robustness of conscience. It is likely that the strong included the more prominent and wealthy members of the church. Their counterparts, likely weaker in social standing(possibly in numbers) and of more scrupulous conscience, were designated “the weak.”

11

and clear rulings. His lean toward “the strong” is inferential and he does not seek to overrule the scruples of the weak. In fact, members of each group were enjoined to hold firm to their convictions, another indication of Paul’s regard for the dictates of conscience.

But there was a rub.

Both groups were to regard each other as full members of the body of Christ, despite their “mistaken” views and “dangerous” or “overly scrupulous” practices. If anything, it seems that Paul sided with “the strong,.” This might have surprised the Jewish-dominated faction given Paul’sreputation as a Jewish scholar in the party of the Pharisees. This lean toward “the strong” would likely have been driven by missionary concern. If scruples hindered the spread of the gospel, Paul was able to violate them for the sake of fully including those coming to faith in the Jewish messiah, whose blessing extended to the nations.

What this meant precisely in the life of the churchis not spelled out, but we do know that Paul had a robust understanding of the practice (it was nothing, after all, if not a practice) of acceptance. Acceptance in Romans is equivalent to the full embrace that those who trust in the savingwork of the Messiah receive—the full acceptance of sinners in the hands of a God whose anger toward sin was assuaged by the faithful obedience of his son.

12

Acceptance meant taking one’s seat at the banquet feast of the kingdom of God, prefigured in the lovefeasts of the church gathered, as a favored-by-adoption child of God.

Again, we can imagine the heavy toll this took on the psyche of the Roman believers. Imagine a familywith scruples against eating meat sacrificed to idols—understandably viewed as participation in idolatry—maintaining fellowship with a family that eats such meat with a clear conscience? In deference to the weak, such a family would not serve the meat for dinner when their counterparts were sharing a meal together. But they would eat their own meat without apology. One can imagine the worries that parents with stricter scruples (against violation of the first commandment!) mighthave by the example set by another family in the community of believers. And yet, both were called to acceptance, full embrace—the strong would have to live with the knowledge that what they did in faith was regarded by others as gravely sinful, andthe weak would have to live in community with thosewho’s practices were regarded as spiritually dangerous. Imagine both groups serving as leaders in the church without discrimination. No small ask on Paul’s part, for the sake of the gospel.

THE CATEGORY APPLIED TO EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE

Of the controversies that currently divide Christians from each other, one’s views on evolutionary science seem ripe for regarding as a disputable matter within an evangelical context.

13

A brief history of the dispute

In 1859, Darwin’s Origin of Species challenged the prevailing view that species were forever fixed.10 The common reading of Scripture held that God specially created every species intact with no natural way for way for one species to change over time so much that a new species emerged. This view left little room for species extinction or for the adaptation of species to new environmental and ecological threats. God was viewed as both the ultimate and proximate cause of the vast diversity of species. In effect, God specifically didn’t use natural means to create. Despite the great evangelical divine, Jonathan Edwards, having said, “God is a God of means.” Darwin’s theory was especially challenging to Christian faith because the foundations of faith were shaken by “higher criticism,” that is, historical and textual criticism that called into question the authorship o the Bible, variations in the available manuscripts, etc. Because of these and other trends (including the Reformation suspicion of experience) faith was grounded in a rationalist take on the wonders of creation, which was conceived of as a “perfectly designed creation.” William Paley’s natural theology11 (precursor to what would become modern science) 10 Darwin made no claims about the role of God in the origin of life on earth (other than to assume divine agency.) He simply sought to demonstrate that natural selection can account for the vast diversity of species on earth.

14

ignored superfluous structures like the appendix orpoorly functioning ones, like a windpipe sharing a passageway with tube leading to the stomach, while highlighting the complexity of the eye—seeing this complexity as a sure sign of design (conceived of as a design plan followed by a creation event.) Hisfamous comparison: If we happened upon a timepiece in the road, would we not infer a watchmaker? In popular terms this translated to “We know there must be a God—how else can we explain how everything seems to be so well designed?” as the primary, if not the singular foundation for belief.

Despite this, some early evangelical responders to Darwin were positive. Asa Gray, a devout Congregationalist Harvard botanist, heavily promoted Darwin’s work in the United States scientific community12. More tellingly, B.B. Warfield, a theologian who developed the modern doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and wrote articles for The Fundamentals wrote: “I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.”13

But Darwin’s primary popularizer in England was Thomas Huxley, also called “Darwin's bulldog.”

11 Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, by William Paley, Suzeteo Enterprises, 201212 Asa Gray: American Botanist, Friend of Darwin, by A. Hunter Dupress, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1959.13 Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, by Gregg Allison, p. 270.

15

Huxley saw in Darwin’s findings an opportunity to undermine what he regarded as the excessive influence of the Church of England in English society. Huxley emphasized the incompatibility of Darwin and Christian faith.

By 1926, American evangelical Christianity had moved toward a sharply toward hostile posture regarding evolution. William Jennings Bryan, who argued against evolution in the “Scopes monkey trial" was less concerned about the biology of evolution and more concerned about “social Darwinism”—the bogus application of Darwin’s teaching to the social realm, justifying odious practices like eugenics.

In the mid 20th Century “Young Earth Creation Science” emerged, a movement led by Seventh Day Adventist and Missouri Synod Lutherans claiming (against earlier Christian tradition) that Genesis 1-3 were scientific accounts and were to be taken literally. (The church father Augustine urged against this reading.14) “Young Earth Creationism” as it came to be called, was very effective in propagation through popular level writings and workshops held in churches throughout the United States. Originally, an American phenomenon, it

14 St. Augustine, the Literal Meaning of Genesis. vol. 1, Ancient Christian Writers.

16

tended to spread globally through the influence of American missionaries.15 As courts ruled against the attempt of Young Earth Creationists to remove evolution from public schoolscience curricula, the Intelligent Design movement emerged late in the 20th Century. Intelligent Designproponents16 grant the reality of some evolutionary change—even at the level of species—but claim that natural processes cannot account for structures that are regarded as “irreducibly complex.” These,it is asserted, require direct divine agency.

Recent years witness signs of a thaw among leading evangelicals. For example in a 1997 interview withDavid Frost, Billy Graham is quoted by Frost as saying,

“I don’t think there’s any conflict at all between Science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say. I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course, I accept theCreation story.  I believe that God did create

15 The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, by Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 241-25816 Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael Behe (Free Press, 2006)

17

the universe.  I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. I personally believe that it’s just as easy to accept the fact that God took some dust and blew on it and out came a man as it is to accept the fact that God breathed upon man and he became a living soul and it started with some protoplasm and it went right up through the evolutionary process. Either way is by faith and whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”17

Ten years later, Francis Collins seminal work, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,18 argued for the legitimacy of evolution science as compatible with evangelical Christian faith. Collins, then head of the Genome Project, and now director of the National Institute of Health, received a Christianity Today Book of the Year award (inapologetics and evangelism) for his book. Since then, Collins founded BioLogos, an organization dedicated to opening dialogue with evangelicals over the legitimacy of evolution.

17 Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, by David Frost and Fred Bauer)

18 The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Francis S. Collins (Free Press, 2007)

18

Effects of the prevalence of anti-evolutionary thinking in the church

In a recent major survey of all Protestant clergy, the vast majority held views that are not acceptingof evolution. A clear majority (54%) held the “young earth creation” view.19 The only position that accepts evolutionary science is the “theistic evolution” view20, held by only 15% of all Protestant clergy. Since the survey includes mainline Protestant clergy in the sample (who are generally less conservative than evangelicals and fundamentalists), it is reasonable to assume that asubstantial majority of clergy and significant lay leaders from any evangelical denomination hold views on creation that are not accepting of evolution. Nearly 60% of clergy who reject evolution disagreed with the statement, “The church’s posture toward science prevents many non-Christians from accepting Christianity.”

Since most Protestant clergy hold what might be characterized as dogmatic opposition to evolution—and regard this as presenting no obstacle to the faith of those who accept evolution—it is reasonable to assume that toleration for those who

19 That God created the earth and living creatures 6-10,00 years ago in 6 literal days, each species created in a special act of divine intervention and not through natural means.20 The view that the evolutionary account of creation is scientifically accurate and agnostic with respect to God’s agency and that God could and did use evolutionary process to bring forth all life on earth.

19

accept evolution is not robust in most churches in the evangelical sector of the American religious landscape.

In many churches, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this question is not regarded as a “disputable matter” and that those who accept evolution have the experience of a stigmatized minority. That is, they may feel it necessary to “keep quiet” about their views so as not to be viewed as those whose faith is defective or whose orthodoxy is dubious.

Tellingly, over half of pastors (58%) who fell under the Young Earth Creation category agreed withthe following statement: “If you publicly admitted your own doubts about human origins, you feel you would have a lot to lose in your ministry.”

Recent evangelical scholarship on the Christian origin stories

Dr. John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, provides a compelling and illuminating interpretation of Genesis 1-3 based onrecent scholarship on Genesis as a temple narrative21

Emily Swan in a recent Society of Vineyard Scholarspaper summarizes: “John Walton contends that Exodus21 see ,The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, by John Walton, IVP Academic 2009 and his forthcoming, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3and the Human Origins Debate, IVP Academic 2015

20

25-40 is the companion narrative for the creation story, with parallels between YHWH and Moses inspecting various aspects of the garden or tabernacle, respectively, and giving their blessingand approval for each phase. He also draws some comparisons to both Solomon’s and Ezekiel’s Temples._ He says Genesis claims the whole of creation is the Temple of God, the Earth is the throne room of God, the Garden of Eden is the antechamber, and the humans are priests of the MostHigh God in this Temple.”22

Walton’s view, based on research on ancient cosmology and temple narratives, sees Genesis 1 as a temple construction narrative in which the world comes into being “function by function” in phases, culminating in entrance of the priesthood, then thefilling of the tabernacle with the glory of God. Walton argues that Genesis 1, like other ancient accounts grounded in functionalist rather than a materialist ontology, in which a thing comes to exist as it begins to function, rather than as it has material existence. (As a corporation—and one might also say the church—is thought to exists as it begins to function.

Since Genesis 1-3 is not written within the framework of a materialist ontology, the biblical origin story is not to be read as a modern scientific telling of creation.23 This corresponds to the notion that Scripture speaks in the language22 God’s Temple: A Fresh Look at Genesis 1-2, Emily Swan, Society of Vineyard Scholars, April 2014

21

and thought forms of the original hearers. Modern science was not part of the ancient framework when the stories that became Genesis 1-3 were circulating among the people of Israel. Reading these chapters as scientifically accurate documentsis to read them anachronistically.

A modest proposal

What if N.T. Wright is right about being wrong in his thinking 20% of the time? And what if Billy Graham is correct in thinking that God could have created humanity through an evolutionary process? Furthermore, what if many people are reluctant to come to faith in Jesus because they believe that itwill require them to deny the validity of the primary narrative of modern science—that all livingthings share common ancestry? What if this obstacle is unnecessary—that is, what if God is perfectly willing to accept them “as is” such that their future sanctification does not require them to think differently than they do about evolution? If so, then Romans 14-15 can serve as a guide for creating a community in which those who hold various views about the integration of science and biblical faith when it comes to evolution are fullyaccepted.

23 “Science cannot offer an unbiblical view of material origins, because there is no biblical view of material origins aside from the very general idea that whatever happened, whenever it happened, and however it happened, Goddid it.” The Lost World of Genesis One, by John H. Walton (IVP Academic 2009), p. 113

22

In such a community, it would be explicitly understood that varying views on the matter are allowed. Disputable matters exist within the community but we don’t “quarrel” over them.24 “Here’s my view, but we don’t hold a view in commonon this matter” would become a common refrain when the issue is discussed.

Members may hold strong views on evolution (either for or against) without pressure to change their views.25 At the same time—and here is the rub—members with strong views are not allowed to insistthat their views must be adopted by the community as a whole. The views of one party are not privileged. In particular, one party cannot insist on exclusionary policies aimed at the other as the price of their participation in or support of the community. So, for example, a Young Earth Creationist could not insist that a supporter of evolution couldn’t be a leader of the church, or work with young people. This is implicit in Paul’s insistence throughout on mutual “acceptance,” understood as full embrace.26

The discussion of disputable matters in Romans 14-15 is, like so much in the epistles, particular to the situation being addressed. Contemporary controversies may not divide neatly into the camps Paul characterizes: “the weak” who are more scrupulous on a matter (and in a position of sociological disadvantage) and “the strong” who are24 Romans 14:125 Romans 14:526 Romans 15: 7

23

more libertarian (and in a position of sociologicalstrength.) For example, in a conservative evangelical setting, those who oppose evolution could be characterized as more scrupulous and yet, by all measures hold a more powerful position within the community (stronger representation in leadership, representing more financial support of the community, having the backing of the wider evangelical community.)

It is instructive that the two parties in Rome seemto have different tendencies: “the weak” are urged not to judge the strong while “the strong” are urged not to hold the weak in contempt.27 Both are violations of love and in their respective ways constitute forms of judgment. But the differences are also important: “the weak,” presumably, are tempted to judge “the strong” as sinful, while “thestrong” are temped to hold “the weak” in contempt (as having a naïve or less sophisticated perspective).

In a conservative evangelical church, we can anticipate how things might play out. Those who oppose evolution (whether proponents of Young EarthCreation or Intelligent Design), would likely be ina position of social strength within the congregation. They would hold leadership positions,be well represented on the church board, and would likely provide more financial support for the congregation, so that the threat of their leaving would carry greater weight. However, they would

27 Romans 14: 3

24

also, in other ways, fit Paul’s profile of “the weak”—holding scruples about creation that would make them less tolerant (especially given their social privilege within the faith community) of other views, and tempted to judge others’ views as sinful (undermining the authority of Scripture, etc.).

Within a more progressive setting (a mainline Protestant congregation in a university town, for example) those who accept evolution might be in thesocially strong position and one can easily imaginetheir tendency to hold those with Young Earth Creation views in contempt—as backward, naïve, unsophisticated.

So, application of the wisdom of Romans 14-15 requires careful contextualization.

CONCLUSION

We can imagine that Paul’s sympathetic posture toward the position of the strong28is driven in partby his missionary call: “To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law.” (1 Cor. 9:21)

The category “disputable matters” was a mechanism for Paul, the missionary, to keep the Romans mission to the Gentiles going strong. The Gentiles would not be burdened with Sabbath observance or

28 Romans 14:14

25

scruples about eating meat sacrificed in the butchers shops located in pagan temples. They wouldlearn how to get along with those who regarded their practices as sinful, but they would be fully accepted within the Jesus communities, as is.

We are faced today with a new group of Gentiles. Those who regard modern science as a legitimate authority—to use a cultural shorthand, who have no beef with climate science or evolution—are among those left behind by the evangelical church. That is, when they enter a conservative evangelical congregation (and start making Facebook friends from the congregation) they realize that their views do not enjoy a friendly welcome. They either suppress their views for the sake of belonging or go elsewhere. Mostly, they know better and don’t make the attempt to begin with.

Those seeking to welcome these modern day Gentiles can be guided by the wisdom (one might call it the psychological genius) of Paul in Romans 14-15. Because this wisdom ultimately derives from the gospel itself, receiving it requires one thing: humility, intellectual humility, the humility of one of today’s foremost Jesus scholars, N.T. Wright, who has the good sense to know that he can be wrong and not know it.

26

27