HOW CHRISTIANS CAN DISAGREE WITHOUT THE CHURCH DISINTEGRATING THE CHURCH

Transcription

1 HOW CHRISTIANS CAN DISAGREE WITHOUT THE CHURCH DISINTEGRATING (Romans 14) THE CHURCH by Coy Roper Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.... Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother s way.... So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another... (Romans 14:1-23). C HRISTIANS disagree! Even though the apostle Paul urged Christians to all agree and to be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Corinthians 1:10), Christians still disagree! For example, there may be conflict in the local church over whether it is right for a Christian to go to war... over the question of using one cup in the Lord s Supper... over the Sunday school issue... over whether a church as such can support an orphan s home or send money to an evangelistic program like Herald of Truth... over what the indwelling of the Spirit means... over what the New Testament teaches about marriage and divorce... over whether women must wear a hat to worship... over whether it is right for women to wear slacks to church... over whether Christians can observe Christmas... and over many moral questions is it right to drink socially? to smoke? to dance? to gamble? Christians disagree on these questions and many others. However, we should not be surprised that Christians disagree at times, for at least two reasons: First, any time there exists a group of people with strong convictions, there will be conflicts. Within every religious group in which doctrine is still important, there are controversies. Thus, in the church, only when we reach the point where doctrine is no longer important will there be no more conflicts! Second, conflict in the church should not surprise us because there was conflict in the first century church in the church at Rome, for instance. If Christians then disagreed, it should not seem astonishing that Christians disagree today. There have always been and will always be disagreements among brethren. We need to recognize that fact. But we also need to discover how Christians can disagree without the church disintegrating. Romans 14 was written to deal with that problem. It suggests four requirements for the church to remain a harmonious whole, even when its members disagree. RECIPROCAL ACCEPTANCE To maintain unity in spite of disagreements, we must accept each other. This is, of course, the way Romans 14 begins: As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him... (14:1; RSV). The NASB says, Now accept the one who is weak in faith, and the NEB agrees: If a man is weak in his faith you must accept him. But what does this mean? Whom must we accept? And how? 1

2 Not the Acceptance of Non-Christian Brethren First notice that the passage does not teach that we must accept people as brethren who are not Christians. Those under consideration in this chapter are people whom God has welcomed (14:3), who are servants of God (14:4), who belong to the Lord (14:8), who are brothers in Christ (14:10). Those on both sides of the controversy were conscientious Christians: whether or not they observed days, they honored the Lord; whether or not they ate, they gave thanks to God (14:6). To say that the chapter teaches we must accept anyone other than faithful Christians is to misuse it. The Acceptance Between Those Who Were Strong and Weak Second, notice what the passage does mean when it speaks of mutual acceptance. We need to understand the situation in Rome, see Paul s solution to the problem, and then apply that solution to our situation. In Rome, two parties were involved in the controversy. One was more strict than the other. The strict party is spoken of as weak in faith, apparently because they did not understand what liberty in Christ meant. They believed that they had to observe laws which were no part of the gospel. Perhaps they were Jews who observed the food laws and the special days of Judaism; perhaps the question of meats had to do with eating meat offered to idols. The more liberal party had a better understanding of the apostolic teaching that Christians are free to eat what they wish and are not required to observe special holy days. They disagreed then over what a Christian could eat; over whether a Christian could drink wine (14:17, 21). The strict party taught careful rules regarding food and drink and days. The liberal party disregarded all these strictures. As a result of their disagreements, the strict party was inclined to condemn their liberal brethren. Perhaps they said: See those people they claim to be Christians, but they re eating meat. That s a sin! They re condemned by God and going to hell! On the other hand, the more liberal party was inclined to be contemptuous of their brethren with the weak consciences. They may have said: Look at those silly people! They still think 2 that they ve got to respect the food laws of the Jews they don t understand that the old food laws no longer apply. Isn t that stupid! Paul s solution to their problem is twofold: First, to the weak brother he says, You must not judge or condemn brethren who do things you think are wrong.... Let not him who does not eat judge him who eats,... (Romans 14:3). Why not? Because (1) God has accepted him; (2) he is God s servant, and we have no right to judge another man s servant; and (3) we will all be judged by God, and each shall give account of himself (not of his brother) in the judgment. (See 14:3, 4, ) Second, to the strong brother, he says, You must not show contempt for the brother whose conscience is easily wounded. Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat (14:3; cf. v. 10). This involves welcoming him, but not for disputes over opinions (14:1). We are to receive the weak brother into our fellowship, but not just to argue with him. We are to accept him in his weakness. Thus, the first necessity for dealing with disagreements is reciprocal acceptance. The strict brother must accept the liberal brother, without judging or condemning him. The strong brother must accept the weak brother, without despising him. As we apply this rule, we need to avoid reaching two wrong conclusions. We need to avoid reaching the conclusion that there was no right or wrong side to the questions under discussion. In this case, the strong brother was right. Nevertheless, those who were right had to accept those who were wrong, even though they knew that on this point their brethren were wrong. And the weak brethren, who were wrong but thought they were right, had to live with their more liberal brethren, even though they (wrongfully) thought the liberal brethren were wrong. These mistaken weak brothers would have had to accept their opponents in the belief that God would somehow save them anyway, in spite of their wrongness (14:4). We must also avoid reaching the conclusion that we ought to accept our brother, regardless of the nature of our differences with him. The acceptance of our brother with mistaken ideas does not extend into the area of that which is essential to Christian doctrine. Paul is here dis-

3 cussing matters of indifference. Eating, drinking, or observing days were matters of indifference. This same Paul who taught that we ought to accept one another on other occasions stood firmly for the truth. Listen to Galatians 2:5: To them [the Judaizing teachers] we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. Why on one occasion does Paul counsel mutual acceptance, and on another occasion he himself not only does not accept, but even strongly opposes, others who at least appear to be in the church? Because in Romans 14 Paul was concerned about matters of indifference, while in Galatians 2 he was concerned about matters of necessity about essential, eternal principles of doctrine which would affect a man s salvation, here and hereafter! If we as brothers disagree in the realm of expediency or indifference, we must accept one another. However, we should add that the weak brother, the strict brother, always tends to think that the question he is concerned about is a matter of necessity! The strong brother has no problem at this point, for he believes that the controversy concerns an indifferent matter. We would, therefore, give this advice: Before you decide not to accept your brother because you two disagree on what you believe is a matter of necessity, you might consider whether or not it is just possible that you are wrong. Sometimes you may need to accept your more liberal brother anyway, hoping that he may somehow be saved by God s grace in spite of his mistaken notions. One thing seems certain: We ought to be very reluctant to draw lines of fellowship between ourselves and our brothers. We ought to be naturally and lovingly inclined to accept even brethren who disagree with us. If we are finally forced to conclude that we can no longer accept a brother because of the nature of the error which he has embraced, it should be only with the greatest reluctance, with sadness and tears. The rule is: When you disagree, accept one another. There are exceptions to the rule, but let us not forget the rule. PERSONAL FORBEARANCE We may need to forego what we are really free to do. Paul discusses this in the second part of Romans 14. In verses 1 through 12 he speaks to both the strong and the weak, urging mutual acceptance. But beginning in verse 13, he speaks almost exclusively to the strong, or liberal, brother. Paul makes it plain that the strong brother is correct in his views: Nothing [no food] is unclean in itself (14:14). All things [every kind of food] indeed are clean (14:20). But at the same time he says that if the strong brother s eating will injure the weak brother, he ought to abstain from eating. Notice, for instance, verse 20: Do not, for the sake of food destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make others fall by what he eats. (See also 14:13, 15, 21.) But what does it mean to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother s way, or to injure your brother? For verse 15 in the KJV says, But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.... Does this mean that I ought to abstain from eating meat if it makes my bother unhappy? We need to interpret verse 15 in the light of what the passage says throughout. The emphasis of the passage is that I must not do what will cause my brother to fall (14:13, 21). Paul s concern is that through our eating we may spiritually destroy the soul of another Christian (14:10), not that we may make him unhappy. How could that happen? In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul says that if I do something my brother thinks is wrong, he may follow my example. But if he does, he goes against his conscience and he, therefore, sins (14:23). But I caused him to sin, and so I have sinned, both against him and against Christ. Therefore, I ought to abstain from doing something even when it is right in itself if by so doing I am likely to cause a weak brother to follow my example and so sin. Another possibility is that my doing what my brother thinks is wrong could cause him to become so unhappy that he might leave the church and fall away from God. If this is likely to happen, then I ought to refrain from doing what my brother disapproves of. But, someone objects, that seems to be so one-sided. Must I a strong member, one with more knowledge, one who is right on this issue must I make all the sacrifices? Paul gives the best answer to that question in Romans 15:1, 2: Now we who are strong ought to bear the failings of the weak, and not to please 3

4 ourselves; let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him. Paul seems to be saying: That s exactly right! You who are stronger, who have more knowledge, have a greater responsibility. You cannot expect your weak brother to give up his scruples immediately. If anyone is to make a sacrifice, it will have to be you. Your aim should be, as Christ s was, not to please yourself, but to please others (Romans 15:3). If you insist on your own way, though it means the destruction of another soul, you prove you are not strong! Paul demonstrated this principle. On matters of necessity, he stood firm. But when no matter of necessity was involved, he was willing to go along with others for the good of the church. Thus, he once said, Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble (1 Corinthians 8:13). Even so, although we may have the right to do something, we may need to refrain from doing it in order that more good may result. I believe that the brethren in a small congregation where I once preached demonstrated what we are talking about. One faithful older man believed that it was wrong to use more than one cup in the Lord s Supper. He also thought that it was wrong to have several Bible classes on Sunday morning. The other members of the church did not share these convictions. Consequently, the brethren served the fruit of the vine in only one container. There was no harm done; no Scripture indicates we must use more than one container. And they kept the old brother from sinning, for if he had taken the fruit of the vine from one of several containers, he would have sinned against his own conscience. On the other hand, they did not give in to him on the question of Sunday school. They believed that the children needed teaching and the classes were too important to abandon just because one brother thought they were wrong. However, they did not cause the weak brother to sin, for he neither taught nor attended any of the classes he disapproved of. He, in turn, did not quit the church just because in one thing he did not get his way. Neither did he condemn the brethren who did not agree with him. That is the way it ought to be: The strong should yield to the weak. But when the time 4 comes that they believe that something is too important to give up merely because someone objects, then the weak should accept the actions of the strong, without condemning them and without leaving the church. MUTUAL EDIFICATION If we are to disagree without the church disintegrating, brethren must emphasize that which edifies or builds up. Notice 14:16-19: Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Paul speaks against a selfish attitude on the part of the strong brother who may insist on his rights and say, I have the right to eat meat eating any food is good. So Paul says:... do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil! Why not? Because the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking! What is important in the kingdom is not food and drink. What is it? It is righteousness and peace and joy! What then should we do when we disagree? We should... pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. In the local congregation, that which should occupy most of our time is what will build up the church. Two possibilities are these: We can major in argumentation or in edification. Some churches seem to do nothing but argue. Their members may agree on 98 percent of the doctrine, but the other 2 percent keeps the congregation in an uproar. Souls are not saved; no one is edified. They are like a preacher I heard who said, I just live for debates. But it does not have to be like that. In another church, people disagree, but peace reigns because brethren realize that they can work together even when they disagree, without either side giving in to the other. They downplay the issues on which they do not agree and stress the things which make for peace! For instance, brethren can pray together, sing together, work together, study together, and worship together without agreeing on all issues. That is what I mean when I say we need to

5 emphasize those things which will result in mutual edification. INWARD COMPLIANCE In dealing with the controversies within the church, each individual must comply with his own conscience. This is what Paul says in 14:23: But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. We say that conscience is not our guide. That is only partially true. Conscience is not the sole guide in religion; it is not the primary guide; it is not the final authority. But it is a guide! We must follow our consciences. The point of 14:23 is that even if something is right and we do it, but we believe we are wrong in doing it, it is wrong to us! Conscience, in other words, cannot make a wrong thing right, but it can make a right thing wrong. If I think it is wrong to observe Christmas in any way, to eat meat on Friday, or to go to the movies... to me it is a sin, whether it is to anyone else or not. This, of course, does not mean that I must assume that every other person believes as I do. Much less does it mean that I should force others to accept my beliefs. But it does mean that I must be true to my own beliefs. If I fail to do so, I sin. Christians will disagree. The question is: What will happen as a result? Too often, disagreement leads to disintegration of the church. Some brethren seem to think that unless there is perfect agreement on every single point of every issue, there can be no unity. They are quick to draw lines of fellowship, to denounce as heretics all who disagree with them, and to split the church if all will not accept their views. Contrast their way with Paul s way in Romans 14. Which course will you take? Of this I am sure: The church would be stronger if we could learn to disagree without disintegrating. Word Studies from William Barclay Stumbling Block The word which is used for stumbling block is a vivid word; it is the word skandalon. Originally skandalon meant the baitstick in a trap, the trigger on which the animal stepped, and which snapped shut the jaws of the trap. Later it came to have two general meanings. It meant anything which is calculated to make a man trip up, like a stone set in his way, or a rope stretched across his path. It meant a pit, cunningly dug, and covered over with the merest skin of soil or branches, so that, when the unwary victim stepped on it, it collapsed and engulfed him. Jesus says that any fate is better than the fate of the man who has caused another to stumble and fall (Matthew 18:6, 7). When Robert Burns was a young man, he went to Irvine to learn flax-dressing. There he fell in with a man who introduced him to that way of life which was to be his ruin. In the after days Burns said of him: His friendship did me a mischief. That is one of the most terrible of verdicts. It is sin to ruin one s own life; it is doubly sin to ruin the life of another. It is a terrible thing to learn to sin; it is a tragic and disastrous thing to teach to sin. Seek the Kingdom Men are bidden to seek the Kingdom (Matthew 6:33; Luke 12:31). The word is zētein, and it has been well translated: Make the Kingdom the object of all your endeavour. The Kingdom, as Denney said, is not Copyright, 1989, 2005 by Truth for Today ALL RIGHTS RESERVED for the well-meaning but for the desperate. To enter the Kingdom is worth any sacrifice. It is better surgically to cut off any member of the body which would hinder a man from entering the Kingdom than to preserve the body whole and be shut out of the Kingdom (Matthew 5:29; Mark 9:43-48). Hypocrite The word hypocrite is a revealing word. It is almost a transliteration of the Greek word hupokrites, which means an actor. A hypocrite is a man who acts a part, who presents the world with a version of himself which is in fact a lie, and it was precisely that sin that Jesus unsparingly condemned. Excerpts from The Mind of Jesus 5