The Power of Pauline Ethics: The Strong and the Weak
There are many kinds of strength and weakness. A 259-pound weightlifter is obviously physically stronger than a newborn baby. A Wall Street hedge fund manager who makes 100 million dollars a year is financially much stronger than someone who earns the minimum wage at McDonalds. Someone who is stymied by trying to decide what kind of cereal to buy when there are sixty brands is probably a weaker personality at least in some respects than a brigadier general who gives orders to colonels and majors, who in turn give orders to scores or hundreds of privates and corporals. Someone who has constantly been beaten down by adverse circumstances over decades likely feels weaker than someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth who perceives the entire world to be his personal oyster.
From the context, however, the apostle Paul was not talking about any of those kinds of strong and weak people in the opening verses of the 15th chapter of Romans. Instead he was referring to individuals who were part of the Christian religious community in Rome. In this case it would be those who were affiliated with the new Christians who had recently come into being in the capital city of the Roman Empire. Surely it must not have been easy to become a Roman Christian in the middle of the first century. The Romans did not like the Jews of Palestine, and they were probably not partial to the Jewish Christians who started the church in Rome either. There would have been either a palpable or a hidden tension beneath the surface of the Roman Christian community. What would the Emperor or the authorities think of them? They didn’t know. Those who were very strong in their faith may confidently have gone about their daily lives with little fear, but those who were tentative may have felt like waving willows in the wind.
There are parents who are very strongly committed to both The Church of Jesus Christ and to a particular congregation within the Church. But their children may not be nearly as committed as their parents. Their faith may be tepid, as compared to torrid, puny, as compared to powerful. And when the offspring are adults, the parents may hold it against their daughters or sons that they appear to have very weak zeal, if they have any zeal at all.
“We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak,” said Paul. It was excellent advice, not only for the Christians of Rome but also for Paul himself. To someone who oozed confidence from every pore, as did Paul, it might be very difficult to bear with the weaknesses of those who were at that point dabblers in faith rather than giants in faith. But when a new religion was just starting out, and it had not yet figured out if it is really new or not, there were bound to be both dabblers and giants, and the giants needed to go easy on the dabblers.
I recently read that Jews moved into China in the 12th century. They traveled along the Silk Route through Persia and India, settling finally in the Chinese city of Kaifeng. There they were warmly welcomed by the locals. Over the centuries they acculturated to Chinese ways. For example, they began to trace their lineage through their fathers and not through their mothers, as Jews had always done. They honored the biblical patriarchs by adopting some of the practices of Chinese ancestor worship. Eventually the Jews of China acculturated so much that they were no longer recognizable as Jews. Apparently by now it is impossible to identify anyone as Jews in China, either genetically or religiously.
No one would ever accuse Paul as being a weak sister. But perhaps he was concerned that in the earliest stages of Christianity in Rome it would be a mistake for those who were strong in Christian faith to look down on those who still seemed very weak. They needed every new recruit they could enlist, and they had to encourage one another in the best way possible so that they would grow into the mighty oak which Paul thought they would become. But in the sixth decade of the first Christian century, the Roman Christians were still a barely-sprouted acorn. “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak.”
There are multitudes of very bright people who may appear to vacillate when it comes to taking “the leap of faith.” The depth of their intelligence may be the very factor which prevents them enthusiastically from affirming faith in God. It isn’t necessarily that they are wishy-washy. Rather it may be that they perceive intellectual obstacles or possible detours which the rest of us might never conceptualize. It might even be haughtiness or hubris which leads us to scorn their lack of faith when in fact their apparent weak faith may be stronger than what we believe is the strength of our own faith. We should always try to build up one another in the things which pertain to God rather than to disparage what seems to be weak resolution.
There are certainly other ways that the strong can bear with the failings of the weak besides in the arena of the religious community. The financially or economically strong should pay attention to the fiscal weakness of the poor. Those who are wealthy should contribute to voluntary non-profit organizations which give assistance to the poor. Locally, Habitat for Humanity, Volunteers in Medicine, the Deep Well Project, Family Promises, and other such organizations provide help to people who are struggling to make ends meet. National or international groups which do similar things are CARE, Bread for the World, UNICEF, and various certified medical organizations which help people fight illness and disease.
Politically the strong also should pay attention to the disadvantages of the weak. Too often political decisions are made which support the strong, who do not need much support, if any, and they overlook the weak, who do need the kind of support which only legislators can put into effect to advance the weak and powerless. Because it is the strong and wealthy who contribute most of the money which goes to the campaigns of the politicians, they are the ones whom the legislators often pass the most bills to assist. That is the reverse of the way an ordinarily ethical system of politics should work; the politically strong should think first of the benefit of the politically weak, because sometimes the weak are too weak to benefit themselves.
The Congress has virtually killed further unemployment assistance for those who have been out of work for many months or even a few years since the recession started six years ago. It is alleged everyone should be able to get a job by now, but if they could, they would. A paid position beats unemployment income every time. Perhaps it is “unnatural” for the strong to bear with the failings of the weak. For that very reason it is all the more important to go the extra mile to consider the welfare of the less fortunate. Doing what comes naturally doesn’t automatically equate to doing what is right. Congress also should substantially raise the minimum wage, but don’t count on it. That wouldn’t win votes, and might even lose votes.
Recently I read a newspaper story which postulated that the Middle East was in a political crisis from about 1250 to 1100 BCE. There was a severe drought through the entire region, which caused widespread famine and unrest. This has become known by taking core samples from the bottom of the Sea of Galilee. Biblically, it was during that period when the so-called Sea Peoples, who left the Greek islands in the Aegean, came to Palestine, where they became known as the Philistines. They became the most serious enemies of the Israelites for that whole period of time. They were strong people who had little regard for the weaker Israelites. In such stressful times, stronger nations are likely to try to crush weaker nations, which is what the Philistines did. To be a “Philistine” came to connote someone who takes advantage of someone else who is not in a position to resist.
In general, are men stronger and women weaker? On the face of it, it would appear so. In Sweden, however, there are many conscious efforts to narrow the gap. Last month Time Magazine writer Lisa Abend wrote a story about this trend called Boys Won’t Be Boys, which had the subtitle “Why Sweden’s Push for Gender Equality Is Both a Noble Project and Political Correctness Gone Overboard.” Christine Ingebritsen is a professor of Scandinavian and women’s studies at the University of Washington in Seattle. She believes that Sweden “is laying the groundwork” for the rest of the world. She says, “They’re sort of postgender now and are focusing more on humanism, on what – as humans – is bringing us all closer to equal rights. Sweden is our future,” declares Prof. Ingebritsen, who, with that name, may be Swedish herself.
Not everyone is happy about this societal shift. Ms. Abend wrote, “(C)ritics charge that feminism has become something of a state religion in Sweden, to the point that the country is on the verge of doing away with the idea of men and women altogether.” To that I would say “Lotsaluck.” In any event, in Sweden 47% of women have college degrees, compared to 26% for men. In the United States the comparable figures are 45% to 32 %. The Swedish Parliament is 45% women, compared to 17% in the US Congress. However, in Sweden women receive 14% less income than men, while in the US it is 18% less.
What I am trying to suggest is that Christians who appear to be stronger or in fact are stronger need to take into the account the needs of those who are weaker in many areas of life. As Paul said to the Romans, “May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:5-6).
There are times when the strong themselves feel weak. At the end of 2013 various people were asked by Time Magazine what they were most thankful for in the past year. Rick Warren, one of the nation’s best known and most effective clergymen, said last year was the worst of his life because of the suicide of his youngest son, who suffered from mental illness. The pastor of the huge Saddleback Church in Southern California said, “God doesn’t expect me to be thankful FOR all circumstances, but IN all circumstances. There’s a huge difference. The first attitude is masochism. The second shows maturity…. I’m thankful that God sees all I go through. He cares. He grieves with me. I’m thankful that even though I don’t have all the answers, God does. I’m thankful that God can bring good even out of the bad in my life, when I give him the pieces. It’s his specialty.” I would add that it behooves us when we feel strong to remind others who feel weak because of such excruciating circumstances of the kind Rick Warren described. To hear the Gospel when we are weak is intended to make us strong.
Every year many of the best or the purportedly best movies are released in December. That way they get the best attention from those who are authorized to vote on the Oscars. Last week I strongly suggested two movies you shouldn’t see. This week I’m suggesting another you should see, if you can. It is Nebraska, and it stars Bruce Dern, who has been nominated for Best Actor. The story is about an elderly man suffering from the early stages of dementia. He receives one of those notices in the mail which tells him he has won a million dollars. The fine print, which said he had to have the winning numbers in the lottery of people who purchased magazine subscriptions, simply did not enter his thinking. As far as he was concerned, he won a million dollars, and he wanted to go personally to Lincoln, Nebraska, to claim his prize. So, in the open scene of the movie, he was shown walking along the interstate highway from Billings, Montana east toward Nebraska. A kind policeman stopped, put him in his patrol car, and brought him to the station house, where his son came to fetch him.
There are multitudes of funny lines and scenes in Nebraska, but there is also tenderness and sadness and pathos and a display of humanity in all its grandeur and grief. David, the younger son of the primary character, Woody, reluctantly decides to go with his father to Lincoln. On the way they stop in Hawthorne, Nebraska, the hometown of Woody and his wife. There David learns some things about his parents David didn’t know, and Woody learns some things about himself he either didn’t remember or never knew. Neither Woody nor David is a pillar of strength among human beings, but David is less weak than Woody, and he is wonderfully kind and gentle with his father, for whom kindness and gentleness would not necessarily come naturally to everyone. And while last week I decried the atrocious language in those other two recent movies, in this movie a few of the same words are used, but they are somehow not nearly as off-putting. Occasionally, because of the context, they sound hilarious rather than scandalous.
“We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves; let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him” (Romans 5:1-2). Way to go, David! Way to go, Woody!
Last week I heard what is called “a true-life story,” and as far as I know, every word is true. The wife of an elderly lumberjack in the State of Oregon died some time ago, and he was living alone out in the woods. His daughter decided he needed to come to live with her and her husband. He didn’t want to do that, but she managed to convince him it was for the best. For some time the three adults lived in an uneasy truce, but the father was never happy.
Then the daughter decided to get her father a dog from the animal shelter. She didn’t ask his permission; she just did it. It was an old dog, and the dog was not in the best of heath. When the father saw the dog, he was angry, and said he didn’t want a dog. The dog, somehow sensing that she wasn’t wanted, but also sensing that the old man needed her, went over and licked the old man’s hand, and put up her paw to be shaken. The father put out his own paw, and gave the dog a tentative shake. Then, saying nothing to the daughter or son-in-law, he went back into his bedroom. There he and the dog remained in constant close companionship for the next two years.
One night the dog came into the daughter’s bedroom and gently licked her face. She thought she had better check on her father, and when she went to his bedroom, she discovered that he had died. The dog lay down beside the bed, where she had slept every night for the past two years. Two days later, the dog also died, right beside the bed.
When the minister led the memorial service for the daughter’s father, he also included the dog as an integral and irreplaceable part of the service. The church was filled with people who had befriended the old man when he had walked his dog. Neither the old man nor the dog was strong, but the dog knew that she was stronger than her new master, and she transformed his life.
We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak. That means it is possible for men and women to be the best friends of humans, as well as dogs being man’s best friend. Truthfully, however, dogs seem to know better than people how to be man’s best friend. But to be effective, remember this: We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak.