IN A WORLD OF DIVISIONS—ethnic, racial, national, religious—there has never been a more appropriate time for unity and healing. One of the purposes the apostle Paul has in writing Romans, as Doug Moo so brilliantly shows in the commentary that follows, is to unify a divided Christian community in Rome. The community there was probably started by Jewish Christians, but their numbers were quickly matched by an equal number of Gentile Christians. These two groups are now at loggerheads. The ongoing tendency for old church members to resent newcomers is exacerbated by different ethnic and religious histories.
Paul is at a lull in his work. He wants to break new missionary ground, perhaps in Spain. He desires the support of the most western outpost of Christianity, Rome, to do so. And he does not want to see twenty-five years of missionary work dissolve in factional strife. So for a couple of practical reasons he wants to bring peace among Jewish and Gentile Christians.
It is obvious, however, that his rationale for peace goes beyond the practical. If his reasons were purely practical, his strategies would be different. In order to gain support for his Spanish initiative he would make a presentation of his idea, arguing that unified support is the only way to accomplish the task. He could make what in the first century A.D. passed for “sociological” arguments for solidarity or “psychological” benefits of reconciliation.
Paul, however, chooses neither of those options. Instead, he argues for solidarity and reconciliation using doctrine as his rationale. The book of Romans is about healing divisions in the church with doctrine rather than with sociology, psychology, business management, or even reason to do the work. It is as if Paul said to the church at Rome, “Let’s stop and think about this in the same way God thinks about this. Then let’s act.”
Using Christian doctrine to solve problems of disunity and strife is fast becoming an endangered methodology. Doing so means one eventually has to make judgments about right and wrong—and calling someone wrong these days is interpreted, in religious circles at least, as intellectual harassment. Using doctrine means being willing to draw boundaries as perimeters for Christian faith, and many consider boundaries to be the equivalent of religious red-lining.
To be sure, the anti-doctrine forces in our society make an important point. Sometimes human reason can be used in our theological discussions as a synonym for biblical teaching. Theology, some suggest, is a reasonable exercise, so let’s get together and figure out what God is up to. Unity comes from agreement. This approach is as dangerous an understanding of the church’s task as are the sociological and psychological ones.
Paul has a different idea. He makes clear in the sixteen chapters of Romans that the healing of divisions in the church comes from getting in touch with God’s plan for humankind: what God has done in the past through Israel, what God is doing now through Jesus (which includes Gentiles), and what God projects for the future of the church. Paul does not present a systematic argument as much as faithfully portrays the gospel story. One does not argue oneself to faith, one accedes to the trajectories of the story. That story, Paul tells us, is that of the church engaging the world in ever widening circles of contact.
Yes, Paul says that unity comes from unifying around an insight: The church as God has intended it is a missionary church. Paul’s next wider circle is Spain. He tells Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians that unity comes not from introspective therapy that leads to liking one another or agreeing with one another. It comes, rather, from getting on board the gospel train that is always, everywhere, just now leaving the station. The strong understand this; the weak are in the process of getting on board. To understand Romans, we must during our reading always listen for the voice of the conductor, Paul, telling us it is time to leave.
Terry C. Muck