In these 13 verses we hear the English word “know”
(oida) or “knowledge” (gnosis) some 10 times! Clearly, Paul wants
to challenge cultural ideas about knowledge and its proper place in life.
Philosophers often debated about sources of knowledge and the role of knowledge
in the meaning of life. How one defines knowledge is important as well. Gnosticism
was a movement that rose up after the time of Paul. Gnostics claimed to have
“secret knowledge” about Jesus and salvation. Only those who were
fully initiated into the society got to hold the secret knowledge. These groups
took knowledge as the path to salvation to a new level: knowledge AS salvation!
Perhaps in Corinth some were “enthralled” with knowledge and puffed
up with pride in their own knowledge about God and spiritual matters. This
isn’t the same thing as Gnosticism, but the problem is just as serious.
Knowledge defined as “information” can be addictive,
and Paul knew some were inclined to forsake all else in pursuit of it. Without
using the word itself, Paul seems to supplant knowledge with “community”
in these verses. Knowledge as “information” might be able to build
up an individual, but it won’t bring unity or love. In fact, knowledge
tends to divide us into the weak and the strong. Eventually, one’s “liberty”
could create bondage for another who is weaker in knowledge and experience.
Paul begins this passage with a guiding phrase, “knowledge puffs up,
but love builds up.” He then sets out to demonstrate the inadequacy of
any concept of knowledge that leads to spiritual pride. Verse 3 reminds us
that God is the One who holds all knowledge. Being known by God through loving
Him is far better than to know all kinds of things about God. Those who love
God also love others. It turns out we are “our brother’s keeper.”
Christians are responsible for how our actions affect those around us. This
requires that we be aware of others and have some knowledge of their spiritual
maturity. Paul reminds us to tread carefully around those new to the faith
or who may have special weaknesses from former lifestyles.
I highly recommend the reissued classic, The Homiletical
Plot, by Eugene Lowry (2001, WJK Press). According to Lowry, you don’t
have the seed for a sermon until you have a “homiletical bind.”
That is, some particular space where the powerful claim of a text meets a
sticking point in everyday congregational living. The tension created by the
intersection of these two forces produces a sermon idea with a lot of potential.
Some preachers make the mistake of never leaving the safety of their exegetical
notes. They find a biblical idea and flesh it out in a church presentation.
That could make a uni-directional Bible presentation, but not a sermon. Other
highly “relevant” preachers simply find a human need and, in the
words of Fred Craddock, “Drag a text kicking and screaming where it did
not want to go.” Narrative preaching lets the answers rise out of a text,
while listening for echoes of the questions out in the world.
It’s in this neat little space that engaging the text happens.
Where does what the text says and does press against human experience? We
must answer carefully.
Neo-Gnostics in today’s world want to remake Jesus and,
therefore, Christianity in their own image. They use so-called “historical”
methods to reconstruct a Jesus more palatable to today’s culture. In
our day we see the sad results of a “head-knowledge-first” Christianity.
In the holiness movement we must be aware of knowledge about spiritual matters
as potentially distracting to the heart of Christianity, love.
On the positive side, we have an ethical guide designed to take
this passage seriously. For the Church of the Nazarene, The Covenant of Christian
Conduct seeks to take the community life of the church seriously as we make
moral decisions. Most of the arguments against these guidelines are based
on an individualistic outlook. If our weaker brothers and sisters matter,
we are called to live more carefully. The challenge seems to be in locating
the “food sacrificed to idols” in our present world. Since the passage
deals with weaknesses, the use/avoidance of alcohol and entertainment choices
could apply. Another tension point happens when we realize how difficult it
can be to live faithfully to these concerns in a world like ours. There are
so many choices it can be difficult to discern right from wrong. Thankfully,
we aren’t called to make decisions for others. We can proclaim the truth.
We can trust the Holy Spirit to guide. We can let this passage establish another
important principle to help guide our decisions: love for our brothers and
sisters.
(For the full manuscript of this sermon
go to www.preachersmagazine.org and click on “Sermons”)
Choosing a narrative approach for this sermon might involve the development of a character to represent a typical Christian who is fairly strong in the faith. It is usually best to develop composite characters that don’t look or sound too much like your present church members! This person could be shown in a series of scenes making moral choices based on his or her own experience with God. One could be shown to be celebrating liberty in Christ and making bold decisions in a cutting-edge lifestyle. Then, a hint of a problem could arise, where a particular choice is misunderstood by another person. However, since they aren’t close, our hero simply shrugs him or her off as a judgmental person. Next, the choices could end up affecting someone in his or her own family, and he or she could be forced to deal with the consequences and face the reality that making choices in a vacuum leads to pain for others. A testimony or story of an actual person in your congregation (with their full permission and participation of course!) is another option. The Genesis story of Lot is an example that could pair up well with this passage. Lot’s “liberated” living creates a lot of pain for those who love him. One could run the story of Lot, with insights from this passage interspersed to guide the understanding of the listener. This experiential sermon could lead people to a place of renewed commitment to holiness in community. There is no true knowledge that isn’t relational. There is no worthwhile knowledge that doesn’t arise out of holy love.
