|
Introduction:
“Who is my brother?” What a loaded question. Jesus asked it in
Matthew 12:48-50. His
answer was, “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my
brother…” (ESV). Of course, Jesus had an advantage. He
perfectly understood God’s will and the hearts of all men,
therefore, He perfectly understood how to approach, talk to and
deal with every person and issue. I, on the other hand, am growing
(cf. II Peter 1:5-8).
While I am convinced I understand the will of God in general and I
am certainly convinced God’s entire will is understandable (Ephesians 3:3-4; 5:17), I recognize I am not Jesus. Therefore, I
struggle to answer this question exhaustively. Further,
considering I Corinthians 5:11, answering who is my brother does not end the
discussion. Some people may wear the name “brother” and yet I
cannot have fellowship with them. That is, I cannot jointly
participate in spiritual work, sometimes not even a meal,
together. How do I know when to sever fellowship? How do I know
when to maintain it?
This question comes up almost anytime we disagree. Whether
we talk about institutionalism, marriage/divorce/remarriage, head
coverings, elder qualifications, pitch pipes or dress codes,
someone inevitably asks, “Can we maintain fellowship with each
other?” Someone else says, “Romans 14.” No matter what issue is discussed, Romans 14 seems to be the final word. This chapter is about
welcoming others even when we differ in practice. Sadly, because
we most often study Romans
14 only in the context of some present disagreement, we easily
read into the chapter a meaning that will allow us to fellowship
those we want and “disfellowship” (I use the term
accommodatively here) those about whom we aren’t as concerned.
Strive to examine this text freshly without thinking how it will
impact what you believe about any hot topic in the brotherhood or
what you think about any of the brethren who preach them. Then let
its principles guide you in making your own fellowship decisions. Discussion: I.
Misuses of Romans 14. A.
Romans 14 is
not a band-aid to cover every difference.
I Corinthians 5:11
clearly demonstrates we must sever fellowship over some
differences. So does I Corinthians 15:33. In context of the Corinthians allowing people
to teach there was no resurrection, Paul said, “Bad company
ruins good morals” (ESV). That is, the Corinthians were not to
associate with the bad company teaching this error. We cannot use Romans
14 as the universal eraser for all differences or to teach an
unqualified unity in diversity. B.
Romans 14
is not an excuse to quit studying.
Sadly, too many study an issue until they decide “That falls
under Romans 14.”
People are convinced “falling under Romans 14” means the issue doesn’t matter. Why spend time
studying issues that don’t matter? That seems logical. However, Romans 14:1 speaks of weakness in faith. Doesn’t it stand to
reason if someone is weak in any sense, they need to pursue
strength? Consider also Romans
14:5. That text says I need to be fully convinced I am doing
right. The only way to be fully convinced is to continue studying.
Romans 14 is not an
excuse to quit studying, but a reason to keep studying. C.
Romans 14
is not a straight-jacket with which to bind preferences.
My friend, Max Dawson, was once told he should not wear his red
tie while preaching anymore. The tie offended a sister and because
of Romans 14 he should
no longer wear it. Offended preferences are not the same as
violated consciences. Romans 14 is not about likes and dislikes, but about someone sinning
because they participate in something they are not convinced is
lawful. Read vss. 14-23.
The brother did not dislike eating meat. Rather, he was
unconvinced eating meat was lawful. Therefore, when he ate, he was
not sure he was obeying God. Whatever is not from faith is sin.
Exercising this point takes some honesty. The sister I told you
about a moment ago said the reason the tie offended her is it made
her think of the devil and was therefore a distraction during the
sermon. That sounds spiritual enough. She seemed to believe
because she could remotely connect some spiritual issue to this
tie, she had a right to use Romans
14 to tell my friend he couldn’t wear it anymore. Another
great example is the continual debate over modern songs in our
congregational assemblies. You don’t have to like every song.
You don’t have to like every kind of song. You don’t have to
like old songs. You don’t have to like new songs. But please, do
not attempt to turn your preferences into a standard for our
congregational assemblies. Do not turn to Romans
14 to get song leaders not to sing songs you don’t like. If
the songs teach truth and honor God, then just because you don’t
like the style doesn’t suddenly mean they are forbidden by Romans
14. Be honest, are you really being caused to sin or are you
being asked to do something you don’t like? Romans
14 is not a straight jacket to bind preferences. D.
Romans 14
is not permission to do whatever I want without regard for my
brethren. This may seem too obvious. However, I have seen people
highlight their liberties, acting as though they may do whatever
they want because “Romans
14:10 says you are not to judge me on these matters.” That
is exactly opposite of the chapter’s meaning. Reread vss.
13-16, 20-23 again. Their whole point is we Christians must be
willing to refrain from our “rights” to make for peace and
edification among brethren. We can proclaim our liberty and rights
all day, but if in that pursuit we cause others to stumble we will
be lost. E.
Romans 14 is
not to be used by us to tell everyone else what they are allowed
or not allowed to do.
Considering our last two points, we learn Romans
14 is one of those passages intended to tell us how to act,
not teach us how to tell everyone else to act. It is like Philippians
2:3-4, which tells us not to do anything from selfishness. The
moment we start arguing with someone about how they are violating Philippians
2:3-4 by not doing what we want, we are selfishly violating
the passage. That is how Romans
14 works. The moment we use Romans
14 to demand others refrain from some action or cease judging
us for some action, we are misusing the passage. The passage is
intended to make us refrain from some action if it causes a brother or sister to
stumble. It is intended to cause us
to quit passing judgment when someone is involved in some
issue about which we have doubts. Romans
14 intends to make us look at ourselves, not everyone else. II.
Welcoming a brother according to Romans
14? A.
As earlier mentioned, Romans
14 is about welcoming a brother or sister who differs with us.
With that in mind, what kind of issues “fall under” Romans
14? I cannot make a universal, brotherhood-wide list of issues
that “fall under” Romans
14. In fact, I hope to demonstrate no one can. Such lists do
not tell us what Romans 14 teaches. Rather, they tell us where the list maker is
spiritually. Instead, I want to demonstrate principles presented
in Romans 14 to help
you make your decisions about which issues you will see in Romans 14. I believe an issue must meet all of these criteria to be
a “Romans 14 issue.” B.
For a matter to “fall under” Romans
14, it must be a matter of practice, not merely belief. 1.
Romans
14
does not address every disagreement you and I might have. It
addresses different practices. One person ate meats and kept days,
another didn’t. 2.
There are two areas in which this is important. a.
First, some disagreements do not affect practice and will
not. For instance, while working with Max Dawson, we discovered we
disagreed about the meaning of Matthew
24. He believes the more widely accepted view that Matthew
24 deals with the destruction of Jerusalem through vs.
35. After that, he believes it directly addresses Christ’s
final coming. On the other hand, I believe the entire chapter
directly addresses the destruction of Jerusalem and speaks of the
final coming indirectly in the sense that all judgment follows a
general pattern. We could work together because the only
difference our disagreement made was the exact teaching on Matthew 24. It did not and will not change our practice on any
issue. It does not impact our teaching on the kingdom. It does not
impact our teaching on obedience. On the other hand, if he took a
Premillennial view of the chapter, that would impact several
issues of practice, including teaching on the kingdom and what it
takes to be part of it. I could not have continued working with
him in that scenario. b.
Second, some disagreements are matters of growth and
understanding. Severing fellowship is not our first line of attack
when we find out we believe something different. If we took that
approach, we could not have fellowship with anyone and no one
could have fellowship with us. If we believe we are all growing,
we must also believe we are all wrong on some point. We continue
studying that we might be corrected and draw closer to Jesus.
Therefore, there will be periods of time in which we consciously
extend fellowship to someone who disagrees with our belief and yet
is not differing in practice. (In fact, I imagine we are all doing
this unconsciously because we do not know what every person here
believes about every issue. Nor should we set up a witch hunt to
find out.) For instance, I was converted while a teenager because
I became convinced I was to be a Christian only and not a Baptist
kind of Christian. I became convinced I needed to be baptized for
the remission of sins, which I hadn’t done and was, therefore,
not a Christian no matter how religious I had been. However, I was
not initially convinced songs of worship and edification had to be
sung without instrumental accompaniment. Was the congregation to
hunt down every single incorrect belief I held and withhold
fellowship until I toed the line? Of course not. I was and am a
growing Christian. No doubt, had I begun to teach or practice
differently, they would take action. But while I was willing to
submit to the common practice and was not divisively teaching my
own misunderstandings, the congregation could maintain fellowship
with me. (I have since studied more and learned the New Testament
does not authorize worshipping God or edifying our brethren with
instruments of music. I believe and teach it is unlawful to do
so.) C.
… it must involve individual practice, not
congregational. 1.
Romans
14:2
tells of one person who eats meats and another person who eats
only vegetables. Romans 14:4, 10-12 say the matters of this chapter have to do with
an individual’s service to his Master. While the message of the
chapter may sometimes bear on our decisions for congregational
activity, this passage is not dealing with congregational
activity, but individual. It is dealing with whether or not we eat
meat in our homes, not whether we add meat to the Lord’s Supper. 2.
Sometimes, the individual activity may be seen in our
assemblies and yet still be an individual activity. Consider a
contrast. A particular song leader may decide to use a pitch pipe
to establish the pitch of the song he is leading. However, he is
using that for himself; the congregation is not using it. You may
have conscience against the pitch pipe and could not use it to
pitch the song when you are leading, but the other’s use of it
does not mean you are using it. In contrast to that, if I pulled
up a piano and started accompanying our singing, we would all be
singing to unauthorized accompaniment. We cannot say, “Well
instrumental accompaniment is a Romans
14 issue,” because the use of the instrument involves
everyone. This is why I cannot be a member of an institutional
church. In an institutional congregation, I could not pretend my
contribution was being used only for authorized activities. When a
church’s funds are used for work I believe is unauthorized, my
contribution is being used for that by nature of membership within
the congregation. If I cannot give to support the congregation’s
work, I, personally, cannot be a member. D.
…one brother has a strong conviction; the other doubts. 1.
Do not miss this, it is the most common mistake made about Romans 14. I have taught in the past and repeatedly heard Romans
14 is about two people equally convinced in opposite
directions on an issue. That is, it talks about one person
completely convinced eating meats was lawful and one just as
convinced eating meats was unlawful. Consider the following
statement from F. Lagard Smith’s book Who is my Brother?: “You can be sure that those who
conscientiously refused to eat meat believed that those who did
eat meat were doing so in violation of God’s law. To them,
eating meat was not a matter of scruples but sin. That is
precisely why it was a matter of conscience.”[1]
Is that true? 2.
Reread Romans 14.
Find the passage saying the weak brother is convinced eating meat
is a sin and the brother who eats is violating God’s law. For
that matter, on the issue of days, which one believes the issue is
one of sin? Does one believe you have to keep a day or you are
sinning? Or does one believe you are sinning if you keep a day?
That is not in the chapter. The chapter tells us what some people
do and what some people don’t do. The chapter begins by saying
the person who doesn’t eat meats is “weak in faith,” (not
weak in the faith). It doesn’t say he is strong in his
conviction of faith, but weak. Further, Romans
14:23 does not say the weak in faith brother eats while
convicted it is wrong, but eats while doubting. It is true Romans
14:14 refers to one who eats what he thinks or reckons is
unclean. But in the greater context of the chapter, why does he
reckon it unclean, not because he has strong faith and conviction
that God’s word condemns it, but because his faith is weak, for
one reason or other, that God’s word allows it. For a people who
seek authority and not condemnation, we ought to perfectly
understand how this fits within the context of Romans
14 and the greater context of the New Testament as a whole. 3.
Romans
14:5-6
is not saying one person should be absolutely convinced it is
lawful to keep a day and sinful to not keep it, while the other
person is absolutely convinced it is sinful to keep the day.
Rather, the passage is saying we must be absolutely convinced
everything we do is lawful. Don’t keep a day or eat meat unless
you are absolutely convinced it is lawful to do so. If you doubt,
it is sin to you. Clearly, if you are convinced something is sin,
to you it is, but Romans 14 is not dealing with that. We have too many passages that
tell us what to do when we are convinced someone is sinning to
think Romans 14 says we
don’t do anything about some sins (cf. Matthew 18:15-17; Galatians 6:1; II Thessalonians 3:14). Romans
14 tells us what to do when we are not convinced an action is
lawful. 4.
In a practical world of growing knowledge and conviction,
you and I will be at different points of conviction on certain
issues. Thus, I doubt something is lawful, while you are convinced
it is unlawful. To me it will be a Romans
14 issue for which I cannot judge another. For you, it will be
a matter of sin and you must judge, striving to restore him to
what you believe is the right path. For instance, I am just not
convinced as a child of God who is commanded to love his enemies
that I am free to go over to Iraq to shoot down my enemies. On the
other hand, I am not convinced doing so is a sin. Therefore, while
I continue to study, I have not once said anything to my brother,
Brad, who just got back from Iraq about it. Based on Romans
14, I don’t believe I should judge him over this issue. Why
should I use my doubts as a means to judge his spirituality? For
me, the war question is a Romans 14 issue. However, you may be absolutely convinced killing
someone even in war is sinful and those who do are going to hell.
You have a responsibility to restore the brother or sister who
does it and discipline them if they refuse to repent. For you, the
war question is not a Romans
14 issue. 5.
Do you see why I say a preacher’s “Romans
14 list” says more about him than it does what Romans 14 teaches? Your list is going to be different from mine. I
know that doesn’t make our decisions any easier. But it
demonstrates your fellowship decisions are yours to make, not mine
to make for you. E.
…it must involve inward reasoning, not God’s stated
law. 1.
Romans
14:1
says we are to welcome the weak brother but not to quarrel over
opinions (“doubtful disputations”-KJV). The word translated
“opinions” is “dialogismos” and deals with thoughts and
imaginations. These are things on the inside of man and are often
subjective. The weaker brother’s doubts are not caused by the
plain teaching of scripture, but by his inward reasoning. For
instance, why would a weaker brother think he should abstain from
meats? Certainly not because the New Testament said he should.
Rather, he may have come out of Judaism and think since honoring
God meant abstaining from certain meats under that law, he
shouldn’t just up and start eating those meats now. He can’t
do it without doubting its lawfulness. On the other hand, he may
have come out of paganism and be worried about whether the meat
had been offered to an idol. It is not an issue of the plain
teaching of scripture, but his inward reasoning. 2.
That is not to say the weaker brother might not cite
scriptures to defend his position. Those who would not eat meats
might try to argue from scripture, but the fact remains, the
scripture does not teach us to refrain from meat. For a modern
example, consider dress codes for assemblies. I don’t know about
you, but I was raised it is wrong to dress casually for an
assembly. I have heard all the scriptural arguments that teach we
are to honor and revere God and I agree with them. I
Timothy 1:17 says we should honor God. However, the minute I
start saying the way we dress to attend the assemblies
demonstrates whether or not we honor God, I have left the plain
teaching of Scripture and started reasoning inwardly. Apart from
modesty, God has not said what kind of dress honors Him. In fact,
the only passage I know of that talks about the way people dress
in the assembly is James 2:2-4. It says if we think more highly of the finely dressed
than the shabbily dressed we have become judges with evil
thoughts. While I may not wear a suit to every assembly, you will
not likely ever see me wearing jeans to one apart from extenuating
circumstances. Dressing up for the assembly was drilled into me.
No matter how well I logically know dress doesn’t matter, I feel
like I am not honoring God if I come to the assembly in jeans. But
I am not going to judge you if you do it. Why? Because that is
exactly the kind of issue Romans
14 is dealing with. At the same time, you shouldn’t be going
out of your way to force me into a situation to attend the
assembly in jeans. F.
…both practices in question must be lawful. 1.
This is very similar to our earlier point about personal
conviction. But, strictly speaking, for a matter to be dealt with
by Romans 14, both
practices have to be lawful. It was lawful for a person to eat
meats. But it was not required to eat meats. Romans 14:6 says the one who kept the day and the one who ate meats
did so unto the Lord. It also says the one who refrained from
either did so unto the Lord. We cannot do something unto the Lord
that is unlawful. As I
Corinthians 8:8 says, we are no worse off if we don’t eat
and no better off if we do. Both practices are lawful. 2.
I highlight this point to demonstrate again why no one can
make a universal list of Romans
14 issues. We are having this “Romans
14 problem” because one of us is not convinced one side of
the issue is lawful, but has doubts.
With our differing levels of conviction, we will all view
different issues differently in a Romans
14 context. The point being, if we are absolutely convinced
one side of the debate is unlawful, we simply cannot cover up the
difference by citing Romans
14. 3.
But someone asks, “What if I am wrong?” First, that you
ask that question may demonstrate you are not convinced but doubt,
which kicks us back to our previous point on doubt versus
conviction. That doubt is why you likely continue to have
fellowship with people with whom you disagree in teaching and even
practice on this issue. Let me assure you, while I recognize the
theoretical possibility that I am wrong about the essential nature
of baptism to salvation, I don’t ever question what if I am
wrong about it. Thus, I am not consciously in fellowship with
those who have not been baptized for the remission of their sins.
But I doubt when it comes to war. That is why I am very much in
fellowship with those whose practice is different from my own
without judging them for it. 4.
Someone will still ask, “What if I am utterly convinced
something is lawful but it is not? Or what if I am utterly
convinced something is not lawful but it is?”
We can rest assured, God knows exactly what is lawful and
what is not. Consider the war question I brought up earlier. I
have doubts. You may be convicted it is lawful. Someone else may
be convicted it is unlawful. We can’t all be right. God knows
which one of us is right. The ones among us who are wrong will
make incorrect fellowship decisions. However, we must make
fellowship decisions based on what we believe the Bible teaches.
In fact, no matter what we think, we are making a fellowship
decision. We have a tendency to believe the only fellowship
decision is when we decide to withhold or remove fellowship.
Actually, if we extend or maintain fellowship, we have decided to
be in fellowship. That may be the wrong choice. Let’s face it. I
have doubts about the war issue. While I will not enlist in the
Army, I will not judge others based on my doubts. However, let’s
assume for a moment it really is wrong to kill in war. In that
scenario, I am making the wrong fellowship decision. However, I
must make fellowship decisions and I can only make them based on
what I understand the Scriptures teach. If at some point my study
convicts me plainly one way or the other, I may have to make a
different decision. I may be forced to sever fellowship with some
or I may be forced to re-establish fellowship with some and
apologize. Brethren, we must not make fellowship decisions based
on what we all “kind-of” commonly agree doesn’t really
matter. We must make decisions based on what we believe the Bible
teaches. Let me ask you this. Considering the fact that extending
fellowship could be just as wrong as breaking it and we are making a fellowship decision no matter what we do, wouldn’t
you rather face God having made an incorrect fellowship decision
but be able to say, “I understood your Word to say such and such
and that is why I made the decision, forgive me for being
wrong,” than having to say, “I just decided most issues
didn’t matter and didn’t give it much thought” or
“Everybody else said those issues didn’t matter”? G.
…there must be a safe practice that all involved may
practice without violating their conscience. 1.
Regarding the eating of meats, in both Romans
14 and I Corinthians 8,
Paul demonstrated a safe practice. The person who was convinced it
was lawful to eat meats could refrain. He could certainly refrain
in the presence of the doubting brother. The brother who kept a
day could do so to himself. He wouldn’t invite the doubting
brother over to his home to celebrate the day. In any case, there
was a safe practice through which all could keep from violating
their own conscience and acting from doubt. 2.
In our modern discussions, this demonstrates why most
issues surrounding the debates on marriage/divorce/remarriage
cannot be wiped aside by Romans 14. For instance, I am 100% convinced that the same law of
marriage and divorce applies to all people today whether or not
they are Christians. Therefore, if a non-Christians divorce for
some reason other than fornication, based on Matthew
19:6, I believe they are sinning. If they marry again, based
on Matthew 19:9, I believe
they are committing adultery. The only solution is to leave the
marriage to stop the adultery. However, if someone believes a
different law applies to non-Christians than to Christians, they
think any divorces before becoming a Christian are essentially
nullified by becoming a Christian. For them, the lawful marriage
is the one the person was in when he became a Christian through
baptism. Thus, if the new Christian was to divorce for any reason
other than fornication, they would be ending a lawful marriage. Do
you see the problem? I believe the new Christian must divorce or
he is in an unlawful and adulterous marriage. The other person
believes the new Christian must stay married because he is finally
in a lawful marriage. There is no safe practice. Perhaps, if we
learn of a disagreement, we may maintain fellowship while we
study. However, the moment you decide to stay in an unlawful
marriage or start convincing people I believe are in unlawful
marriages to stay there, I will have to sever fellowship with you.
In like manner, the moment I start telling people you believe are
in lawful marriages to divorce, you will have to sever fellowship
from me. There is just no safe path on which both of us can walk
together in good conscience. Though we go our separate ways, we
will hopefully continue studying honestly. We may and should
continue discussions with each other. After all, according to II
Thessalonians 3:15 we are not to treat each other as enemies
but warn and admonish each other as brothers. However, without
safe ground, we cannot walk together. Conclusion:
No doubt, I have not remotely answered every question
arising from Romans 14 or our discussions of conscience and fellowship. Further,
I have no doubt some may disagree with things I have taught. I am
happy to discuss any question or disagreements. However, if I have
done nothing else, I hope I have demonstrated that, as
individuals, I cannot make your fellowship decisions for you. The
elders can’t, the “brotherhood” papers can’t, the colleges
can’t. You have to study the Bible for yourself and make your
own decisions based on your own Bible based convictions. Further,
as a congregation, I want us to understand no one can make our
fellowship decisions for us. The papers can’t. The colleges
can’t. Another congregation can’t. Our favorite preacher
can’t. We cannot submit to some ethereal list of issues the
brethren have just tacitly decided not to make a big deal about.
We have to make our fellowship decisions and we have to do it
based on what we believe the Bible says. I hope the principles
discussed in this lesson can help you make these decisions. Before we leave Romans 14 please notice vs. 15. I believe it tell us the whole point of this chapter. Paul did not write Romans 14 to delineate a list of issues over which we must divide. Nor did he write the chapter to provide a list of issues to sweep under the rug. He wrote Romans 14 to help us walk in love with each other. The aim of our charge is, after all, love that issues from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith. Whether our study of Romans 14 pushes us to refrain and abstain from some liberty, whether it encourages us to maintain fellowship with others despite our differences and our doubts, whether it encourages us to sever fellowship because we are convinced a brother or sister is sinning impenitently, we must do all things from love. That is, we must do anything with the heart of putting others in their place or trying to show we are better. Rather, we must always act with the desire of helping others get to heaven. That is love. Remember, Jesus gave up heaven to come to earth so we might go to heaven. Jesus gave up His life on a cross so we might go to heaven. How much ought we to give up to help our brethren maintain their conscience and go to heaven.
Glory
to God in the church by Christ Jesus
|
||||||||||
