Weaker Brother, Stronger Brother
Romans 14:1-5
Open your
Bibles to Romans 14 where we're continuing to talk about the weaker brother
versus the stronger brother. The background here is how do we deal with issues,
how do we make decisions about issues that are not moral issues in the Christian
life? They're neither prohibited by God nor commanded by God. It's amazing how
many different activities in life are not specifically
directly addressed by Scripture. Yet most of us have rather firm
convictions about whether or not these activities are something we should
participate in as a believer.
Last time I
pointed out a situation that occurred many years ago when I worked many years
ago working at Camp Peniel when I ran into a group of Christians coming down
from Grand Rapids School of the Bible and Music that we thought were
legalistic. Often that's what happens. People identify some Christians as being
legalistic when the other group is just being a little more rigid in their
precision of application. Legalism is one of those funny terms that is often
used and abused. Technically legalism in a Biblical sense is either adding
works to the gospel, such as saying that in order to be saved you not only
believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins but you have to do something
else on the front end or the back end.
On the front
end I mean you not only have to repent of sins and clean up your life you have
to stop smoking, dancing, going to movies or whatever plus believe in Jesus.
You have to change your moral behavior and trust in Jesus in order to be saved.
In some denominations it's believe in Jesus and be baptized. In some situations
it's believe and be a member of our denomination but the Scripture says its
faith alone in Christ alone. So that's one form of legalism. The way it expressed
itself in the New Testament mostly as a group of Jewish background Christians
who insisted that obedience to the Mosaic Laws, specifically in terms of
circumcision for men, was necessary in order to be truly saved and have a
relationship with God.
The second way
in which legalism entered in was the idea that you had to have a moral life,
you had to obey the law, in order to be sanctified in order to grow as a
Christian. It taught that if there were certain things that were not present in
your Christian life then you were not really living like a Christian. These
were things that were added that were not specifically prohibited or commanded
in the Scripture. Sometimes we speak of them as "gray" areas. I don't
think that's a good term because I don't think they're necessarily gray. They
are non-moral behaviors that are not addressed in Scripture but groups come
together and some people will make choices and then they expect everyone else
to go along with their choices. So the Scripture addresses these in terms of
the weaker brother and the stronger brother.
I tried to find
an article online but apparently all of Moody Monthly's articles are not on
line yet. I tried to locate this the other day. I remember about the time I
went to seminary or a little before there was an article in Moody's monthly
publication called Moody Monthly, always thought that was too much creativity
there, called "Grow up Weaker Brother" that made a good point. There
are a lot of Christians who hold to certain dogmatic positions related to these
non-moral areas that they believe are moral for one reason or another but they're not addressed by Scripture. They continue to hold
them even though they ought to know better. Even though they have reached a
level of spiritual knowledge. So there's really a third group here.
It's not just
the weaker brother or the stronger brother. I'm going to add a third category
that is not addressed in either the 1 Corinthians 8 passage that deals with
this issue or the Romans 14 passage. The category I'm adding is the legalistic
or the Pharisaical brother who has come to his convictions that
are not addressed in Scripture and then wants to impose those upon
everybody else. I remember Dr. Ryrie used to use the illustration when talking
about the injunction in Scripture not to put a stumbling block in front of a
weaker brother. He used to make the point that in order for something to be a
stumbling block the other person has to be moving forward so they can stumble
over it. A lot of times you have people who aren't
growing. They're just being critical so that again is in Dr. Ryrie's
terminology a recognition of this third category that exists out there other
than just the weaker brother and the stronger brother.
Paul gives a command
here at the beginning to receive or accept into fellowship the one who is weak
in faith. The word there to receive is proslambano which means to
accept into one's company or fellowship, to welcome them as part of your
congregation and not to make things that are somewhat unaddressed by Scripture
as a test of fellowship. So he says, "Receive the one who is weak in
faith." I pointed out last time that the verb here for weak is astheneo and it means to
be without strength. It can refer to being without strength physically as in
being ill or without strength spiritually in the sense of being spiritually
immature or unable to go forward because of difficulties in life. So we are to
receive the one who is weak.
We're to accept
them into fellowship and in contrast we are not to dispute. The
word here for dispute is the word diakrisis, which means to argue, to debate, or to quarrel over
something. So he's saying not to have quarrels, which is a word for
debating, expressing your opinion, or getting involved in issues where you may
have legitimate differences of opinion but the Scripture doesn't specifically
address those issues. So he's saying to receive the one who is weak or immature
and do not get engaged into quarrels over opinions.
"Doubtful
things" is a doubtful translation. Disalogismos just means
ideas or opinions or topics of debate or discussions so he's saying not to get
involved in quarrels over opinion as opposed as things that are clearly stated
as absolutes in Scripture. As we look at this passage we have to understand who
these weak believers are in the context of Romans. As we look at this there are
several positions that have been suggested that you may run into them in a
study Bible or in some other writing.
The first view
is that the weak were mainly Gentile Christians who abstained from meat and
particularly wine on certain fast days under the influence of certain pagan
religions. Now the problem with this is that when we look further down in the
passage at Romans 14:14, Paul says, "I know and am convinced by the Lord
Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself but to him who considers anything
to be unclean to him it is unclean." Then he goes on in the next passage
to talk about food. So he introduces the category of clean and unclean when
he's talking about this food. The issue here is really dietary.
That wasn't a
problem with the Gentiles. Clean and unclean indicate that this is a Jewish
issue. There was a large segment of the Romans church who
were from a Jewish background, believers who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
That seems to be what the real issue is here so it wouldn't be Gentile
Christians here causing the problems. Now in 1 Corinthians 8 you had a slightly
different problem, a variation, where the food that was being eaten was food
that might have been previously sacrificed to idols or offered to idols so that
violated the conscience of some believers. So the first option suggested here
doesn't work.
The second
option is that the weaker Christians, perhaps both Jewish and Gentile, who
practiced an ascetic lifestyle for reasons that we cannot determine. This is
just sort of leaping at the conclusion that they were just being aesthetic but
you don't really have aestheticism as being a major issue in the early Church
so that's probably not the right option.
The third
option says the weak were mainly Jewish Christians who observed certain
practices derived from the Mosaic Law out of a concern for established
righteousness before God. Now the real issue in this third option is that last
part that they were seeking to establish righteousness through their obedience
to the dietary laws of the Mosaic Law, the Torah. Now those laws are described
in the Old Testament by the Hebrew word kashir which is where
we get our word kosher and also the variant of that which is the laws of kashrut which has to do
with determining what is clean, what is unclean, and what can be eaten and what
cannot eaten according to the dietary rules and laws of Leviticus.
Last time we looked
at Acts 15 when we talked about the Jerusalem council. If we go back to Acts 10
there is the situation where Peter was on the rooftop at the home of Simon the
tanner and he is in prayer and God the Holy Spirit gave him a vision as an
apostle. The apostles were still receiving visions and dreams and direct
revelation from God because the New Testament canon had not been written yet.
Peter sees this huge tablecloth or sheet descending from heaven that had all of
these animals and food on it that was prohibited by the laws of kashrut. There were
scallops and oysters and shrimp and catfish and pork, and bacon, all of these
things and God gives him directions to take and eat.
Peter wouldn't.
He said, "No, no, Lord. Nothing unclean has ever passed my lips."
There's a self-righteous trend in Peter we see there. Three times the Lord says
to take and eat and finally God makes a point to Peter that what He's declared
to be clean is clean and not to separate from it. Immediately there's a knock
on the door that these messengers from Cornelius asking Peter to come. The
reason is that in a Jewish/Gentile environment where you had Jews who were
observant to the Law and you can see this some today with those who are
Orthodox and eat according to the Laws of kashrut that they
don't go to the homes of Gentiles to eat.
They're very
strict in how food is handled, meat slaughtered, and food prepared. You can't
use dishes and pots of pans that have had meat on them, chicken and beef used
for other things. There's a complete separation of dairy and meat. The reason
is there's an injunction in the Mosaic Law that you were prohibited from
boiling a kid or a calf in its mother's milk. This had to do with certain pagan
practices. In order to make sure that you're not mixing the meat of a calf with
the milk of the mother they have a complete separation of meat and dairy. You
can't go to a McDonald's in Israel and get a cheeseburger because you can't mix
dairy and met. You can't have a hamburger and a milkshake because you can't mix
meat and milk at all. Even in the home there's a possibility that if you have a
pot or skillet and you're going to cook a steak in that skillet there may be a
couple of molecules that don't quite get cleaned in your dishwasher. Then if
the next day you use milk in that pot you have run the possibility that that
molecule of that meat might have come from a calf and the milk from the mother
so you can't run that risk. So there's one complete set of dairy dishes and one
complete set of meat dishes and all of those are kept completely separate.
You either have
a dairy meal or a meat meal, one or the other. You go to certain hotels in
Israel that cater more to a Jewish clientele and their main kitchen will be
either a meat kitchen or a dairy kitchen. The hotel where we're going to stay
in our Israel trip this year is the Inbal. Their main kitchen is a dairy
kitchen. First time I took a group there we were there five or six nights and I
learned Americans like a little more variety in their diet. Pasta and fish can
only go so far. I've stayed there a couple of times since then and I discovered
that the room service kitchen is a meat kitchen.
These
differences truly matter and they mattered especially in the 1st
century because you didn't have conservative Jews and reform Jews and
non-observant Jews. Everyone ate according to the dietary laws of Leviticus. So
Jews would never eat in the home of a Gentile. You just wouldn't do it because
you weren't sure if the animals were killed according to the proper laws or if
they were prepared according to the proper laws. This would have been a problem
in a congregation where you wouldn't have any fellowship outside of the Church.
The Jews would
not go the Gentile Christian's homes. Paul is having
to address this particular issue. It's not based on this concept of trying to
gain righteousness. This was addressed back in Romans 10:3-4 where Paul does
talk about a specific group of groups but there he's talking about unbelievers
who were ignorant of God's righteousness. He says, "And seeking to
establish their own righteousness have not submitted to the righteousness of
God. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness for everyone who
believes." Paul had already addressed that. In this context he's not talking
about believers who are wrong because they were trying to gain righteousness
through the dietary laws. That would be a violation of revelation and a
violation of Scripture. Here he's addressing the weaker brothers who are doing
something that's not prohibited from Scripture.
The fourth
option you may find is that the weak were mainly Jewish Christians who had
ascetic trends who were assimilating or blending Mosaic traditions plus pagan
traditions. There was some of that going on but that's probably not the main issue
here. The fifth option is that the weak were mainly Jewish Christians who like
some of the Corinthians believed that it was wrong to eat meat that was sold in
the market place and was probably tainted by idolatry. Again the verse dealing
with the clean versus the unclean issue would negate that as an explanation and
so we're left with the sixth option.
This option is
that the weak were mainly Jewish believers who refrained from certain kinds of
food and observed certain days out of a continuing loyalty to the Mosaic Law.
They're not looking at the Mosaic Law as a means of righteousness for salvation
or as a means of righteousness for sanctification. That would be wrong. Paul
would have blasted them for that as he does in Galatians for adding works to either
salvation or sanctification so we see that the problem according to Romans
14:14 is related to the Mosaic dietary laws.
Now we go back
and look at Romans 14:2, "For one believes he may eat all things but he
who is weak eats only vegetables." So what you have shows that the
stronger believer has knowledge. He's informed. He's studied the Word. He's
come to a mature understanding of the Word and a mature conviction about what
he should and should not do in terms of his Christian life in areas that are
not addressed by the Word of God, things that are neither prohibited nor
endorsed. On the one hand, one says you can eat everything including that which
is prohibited by the Mosaic Law but the other one eats only vegetables.
Now if I were
an observant Jew at this time and you were a Gentile and you invited me to your
house for dinner I might avoid the meat that's on the plate and just eat the
vegetables. That would be one way I could eat at your home and not violate the
tradition of the fathers. That's what they're concerned with here, just the
tradition of the fathers. That's their culture, they respect it and they want
to honor what they believe. Both the weaker brother and the mature believer are
operating on humility. They're teachable. They're willing to have their opinion
changed by the Word of God.
The legalist,
on the other hand, is arrogant and they have come to their conclusions
regarding these areas that are not addressed in Scripture and they're seeking
to impose their conclusions on other believers. The weaker brother, though, is
uncertain about whether or not he should participate in these activities or
whether or not he should eat this food. He is an immature believer. He's
unlearned. He's untaught. The mature believer, though, has come to a thoughtful
conviction. He's thought through the issues and he's come to specific
conclusions about what he's going to do in his life, not necessarily imposing
that on anyone else.
The Pharisee
has also come to thoughtful convictions but he's trying to impose these on
everyone else. The weaker brother is uninformed. He's weak because he hasn't
been taught. The mature believer understands divine viewpoint but he's open to
correction in case there's a change. That's one of the principles we'll see. When
it comes to the so-called doubtful things, the areas not specifically addressed
in Scripture, there aren't any absolutes. You may reach a conclusion that it's
okay to drink an alcoholic beverage. That's the classic example in America.
That's one of the
more interesting case studies in American culture. Back in the early 19th
century this became a major issue in American evangelicalism. American
evangelicalism was influenced by a post-millennial view of history and by the
idea that people are not inherently bad. By the time you got into the Second
Awakening they were minimizing the doctrine of original sin and total
depravity. They believed men were no longer basically evil. They're basically
good. If a man is basically good, then he's perfectible. If he's basically evil
he's not perfectible. All you can hope for is something that's moral but he's
still going to make mistakes.
Well, if human
beings are not totally depraved and they're perfectible, then society's
perfectible. So the only thing that keeps us from having an America that's
truly utopic is that we have to get rid of the social sins. This idea where
we're looking at social engineering has its roots in the self-righteousness
that came out of, in many cases, a works-oriented gospel that was emphasized by
some segments of the Second Great Awakening. Now there were several social
evils that they believed needed to be addressed. If you could get these social
evils addressed and changed then we could have a utopic society. This theology
really took root more in the North than in the South. It was motivated by the
arrogance that came out of the New Divinity theology and the Union theology
that came out of the Second Great Awakening in New England specifically.
A lot of this
was emphasized by the teaching of an evangelist at that time named Charles
Finney. Finney didn't
even believe in substitutionary atonement. Finney believed in the perfection of
man. He was considered to be the Billy Graham of his day. He founded Oberlin
College and Oberlin Seminary and it was the fountainhead for the whole
abolitionist movement. They believed that the greatest cultural sin in America
was slavery and we needed to get rid of it. They didn't really have a concern
for the individual slave. They were very idealistic. The idea was to get rid of
the social sin and they really didn't have practical working solutions for what
would happen once you freed or liberated or emancipated all the slaves.
This became a
cultural distinction between the North and the South. I'm talking broad
generalizations here and that is that in the North there was that concern for
idealism to perfect or bring in this utopia. They would often focus on this
ideal and ignore the problems it would create for the individuals. So often
it's been said in the North they loved the blacks as a group but individually
they would treat them like dirt. In the South that was
reversed. They would treat the slaves as individuals as a whole in less
than honorable ways but then they would love the individual slave and treat
them with respect because of the influence of Biblical Christianity. So
arrogance was present in both the North and the South, manifesting itself in
different ways.
What happened
in America in a whole is that first you had the identification of the problem
of slavery. They thought if they could get rid of slavery they could move on to
the next problem, which is basically what happened. Reconstruction came along
after the Civil War but the real arrogant radicals in the North were no longer
concerned about blacks. They were moving on to the next issue. What was the
next issue? It was temperance. The next issue was getting rid of alcohol. They
even had places like Dodge City by the 1880's became completely dry. All of
this led eventually to that massive and failed experiment of prohibition in the
early 20th Century.
You also had
the issue of women's rights, which grew out of this same era. Then there was
the emphasis on abolishing child labor laws. It's not that some of these things
weren't evil but it was the motivation behind it culturally, that if they could
get rid of these things they could perfect and reform America and bring in a
Utopic society. It was a right thing in many ways done a wrong way for wrong
reasons and that's what led to a collapse.
So American
Christians have always had this problem with alcohol. In the early 50's, not
long after World War II, when you still had a dominant Christian and Biblical
influence in this country Christianity Today, one of the major magazines for
the evangelical world, conducted a survey among Christians. Close to 90% of all
Christians believed it was sinful for a Christian to partake of alcoholic
beverages. Thirty years later in the mid-1980's they decided to conduct the
same survey again and the numbers completely reversed themselves. Almost the
same percentage that had thought alcohol was a sin in 1950 thought that it was
okay by the mid-1980. 90 to 92% by the mid-1980s thought it was okay for a
Christian to partake of alcoholic beverages.
There are people
who have problems with alcohol. Some folks have a problem that's physical. They
have a reaction to alcohol that can make them extremely addicted to alcohol.
That's a very small percentage. Other people just have a psychological
addiction to alcohol. I went to with a friend to a church called The Believer's
Chapel when I was in Dallas, Texas when I was first in seminary. I went there
on a Sunday night. We had an argument on the way home because I had grape juice
and he had wine. For several months we argued back and forth whether they
served wine or grape juice until we found out that they had both in the tray.
They had grape juice in the outer two rings and wine in the inner ring so
people could choose one or the other. If you had a problem with alcohol, then
you could take the grape juice. If you felt like you wanted to be like the New
Testament church you could take wine. So they were making something available
for everyone.
But you have a
lot of Christians who would impose their view of alcohol on other Christians.
They say. "You can't drink at all. You can't smoke. You can't go to
movies. You can't watch certain television shows." So these people came to
a thoughtful conviction but then they imposed it on everyone else. They weren't
open to any correction. So we see that both the weaker brethren and the mature
believer are oriented to grace. They recognize that whatever we do should be
oriented to the Father. The legalist and the Pharisaical believer is works
oriented. The weaker brother is easily influenced but the mature believer and
the legalist Pharisee were not easily influenced. We'll see those
characteristics as we go through the passage.
So you have on
the one hand the strong mature believer who believes he can eat all things in
contrast to the weaker brother who eats only vegetables. Then in Romans 14:3 we
have the command, "Let him who eats…" This verb is a present active
imperative, third person singular, which means to let him do something or let
her do something. So it says, "Let not him who eats despise or reject with
contempt the weaker brother." You're not to look at him and say, "You
don't think you ought to eat that or drink that? You're just a fool."
We're not to adopt that kind of judgmental attitude toward someone who isn't
sure if they should participate in one activity or another.
Then in the
next line it says, "Let not him who does not eat judge him who eats for
God has received him." This is another application of Matthew 7, which
says: "Judge not that you be not judged." We are not to condemn
another person. It's not talking about evaluation. It's talking about a
critical condemnation of someone else and the reason is given is because it
says God has received him or accepted this person in fellowship in terms of the
eternal fellowship which is part of the body of Christ so we should not be
judgmental toward that person.
Which brings
Paul to the point of raising the question, "Who then are you to judge
another's servant?" We're all servants of the Lord. If I'm a servant and
you're a servant, then it's not my place to judge you in terms of how you think
you are best obeying the Lord in areas which are not
specifically addressed in Scripture. Then he adds, "To his own master he
stands or falls." This is the principle that there are many areas in
life that are not specifically addressed in Scripture. That's an important
term. There are areas where we may have convictions. We may try to support them
in some sense Biblically but it's not specifically stated in Scripture to do something
or not to do something. We are to make a decision of what we think is best in
terms of how we are serving the Lord as a servant of God. It's between each
individual believer and the Lord and we need to let them make that decision.
Over the course
of time we may change our views on things. We may be in different
circumstances. Even within a particular day or week we may choose not to do
something one day and do it the next day, depending on who is around. We may go
out to lunch or dinner with someone and we know that they have a problem with
alcohol or maybe we know they're diabetic and they have a problem with sugar so
we're not going to order a dessert that might tempt them because that would
cause them to have a problem. We're going to be considerate of the other person
and understand that they have certain weaknesses. We're not going to exercise
our freedom in an area that would be perfectly legitimate because we know it
would be a problem for them.
The next day we
may be out with someone else and we may have a couple of glasses or wine or
beer because it's not an issue with that individual. In a lot of these areas
there's no certain absolute. Maybe as a family you were trying to teach certain
codes of conduct to your children so you may make a decision not to watch
certain kinds of television, not to have cable in your home. Maybe you make a
decision not to even have a television in your home and that may be the way you
are going to teach certain values to your children. Then when they are in their
teen-aged years in order to train them because you know it's not going to be
long before they're going to leave the home and they're going to be exposed to
all of these things that you may get a television and begin to teach them and
to train them how to exercise discernment and judgment in terms of the
entertainment that they watch or are exposed to. Different circumstances will
call upon you to apply the Word in different ways. There's not an absolute
right or wrong.
There are four
basic principles or laws here that are identified in the Scripture. The first
is the law of love. This is what overrules everything. It's a spiritual law
based on consideration for others completely. In this situation it's love for
immature believers. It's based on the idea that we are to love others as Christ
has loved us in John 13:34-35. So just as we serve the Lord we are to be
considerate of others and considerate of their views,
their opinions, their ideas. If they are an untaught, immature believer then we
need to be sensitive to that. There may be someone who is an immature believer
that hasn't worked through the issue on something, like whether or not they're
going to drink wine or alcohol and if they see you as a mature believer do it,
then they're going to justify it and may end up abusing it. So we need to think
through some of these issues.
I think we can
go too far with that. You go out to a restaurant and you're going to have good
Mexican food and you decide you want to have a really good Mogollon or Dos Equis
with your Mexican food. You can't be worried about someone you hardly know who
may just pass through the restaurant and see you sitting there drinking a beer.
That may justify them going out on a bender and getting drunk for weeks at a
time. That's not what it means to put a stumbling block in front of someone.
Someone can look at any of us at any time in our life and use something we do
possibly as a justification wrongly for their sin.
Putting a
stumbling block in front of someone is something much more active. If I were to
go out to dinner with someone and I know that they had a problem with alcohol
and I ordered them a beer or if I'm going out to dinner with someone and I know
they're trying to lose weight, I'm not going to order apple pie and ice cream
for them for dessert without them knowing about it. I had that happen to me
recently. You're not going to put something in front of them that's going to
cause them to stumble. You're not going to knowingly do that.
Several years
ago I used that example of a Mexican restaurant and a beer because I went out
with Morris Proctor one day. We were doing a Logos
seminar here. Mo and Cindy had flown in. He's a vegetarian so we went to a
Mexican restaurant because they said they could find something to eat there. I
ordered a beer with mine because I think nothing is better than a beer and
Mexican food. Three or four months later word got back to me that he was
actually using that as an illustration of exactly how Christians should handle
these areas of doubtful things. One of his assistants is a guy who's been very
much involved with this ministry for many, many years and so he told me,
"Mo was so excited. He came back and told me that everybody sits there and
they ask if you're going to be offended or bothered. They're so obsequious
about it and lack so much confidence in what they're going to do. Robby just
ordered a beer like he was ordering a glass of water and that's just how the
body of Christ ought to function." I hadn't heard that perspective before
but we need to be sensitive to others that are immature. I looked at Morris and
from what I knew of him he was a mature believer. He's wasn't
legalistic so I didn't think this wouldn't be a problem.
Now if I went
out with someone else that I didn't know then I wouldn't have probably done
that so I wouldn't create an issue when there really wasn't one. So that's how
the law of love operates. Now the second law is the law of liberty. This is a
spiritual law directed toward one's self that expresses the believer's freedom
to glorify God. Galatians 5:1 says, "It is for freedom that Christ has set
us free." We are free from the Law. We are no longer under the dietary and
other restrictions that were part of the Mosaic Law. There are no rules of
conduct in the New Testament for what we can eat or what we can drink.
Everything can be sanctified to the Lord according to Scripture. So we have the
right to participate in any activity that is not specifically sinful and that
does not violate any of the mandates, either the prohibitions or the positive
commands of Scripture, and won't cause a spiritual failure in our own life. We
have that freedom but we're not to use that freedom to the degree where it
could cause a problem for another believer. The law of expediency then emphasizes
consideration for the unbeliever. A believer may refrain from certain doubtful
activities, not because they're sinful, but because they may mislead or offend
an unbeliever and prevent him from recognizing the true issue of the gospel
that Christ died for his sins.
Let's say I'm
going to the home of an Orthodox Jew for dinner. I am going to refrain from
exercising my freedom to eat whatever I want to so that I will not create an
issue that would distract from the gospel. So we have to be careful. We don't
want to create issues that distract from the truth.
Then the last
law is the law of personal sacrifice which is the principle directed toward God
that involves the abandonment of a completely legitimate function in life in order
to more intensely serve the Lord in a specialized capacity. Paul talked about
this using the illustration of a wife. "The other apostles all have
wives," he said. He exercised his option to not marry so he could more
intensely serve the Lord in his ministry, not that there was anything special
about celibacy or remaining single but it just gave him the opportunity to
serve the Lord to a greater degree. That was his choice.
There are these
gray areas or these non-addressed areas where we may choose one thing but
others may choose something else. If you're in Christian leadership sometimes
you have to recognize that while others can do something that you can't. Maybe
it's a completely legitimate function but it might cause you to weaken in other
areas that lead you into sin. So you have to come to convictions in these areas
in terms of your own circumstances and your own life.
Basically what
we have to understand is that the Scripture teaches that the spiritual life
doesn't operate in a vacuum. We are not autonomous. We are part of the body of
Christ. The body of Christ is not just made up of a bunch of individuals who
live their Christian life without it impacting or affecting other Christians.
There are verses like 1 Corinthians 12:27 that we are "Christ's body and
individually members of it."
Other passages
talk about the fact that we are members of one another. So we have to recognize
that we are part of the body of Christ so we can't fall a victim of this sort
of individualistic idea that a lot of Americans fall prey to. We have a history
and a culture that promotes rugged individualism. I stand or fall by my
decisions and I'm going to make my life work based on my decisions and my
efforts and I'm not dependent on anyone else. That's not the picture we have of
the body of Christ.
We have a
picture in Scripture of the body of Christ where there is interdependency. We
are supposed to be a member in a local assembly and a local body. Now that's
not possible today for some people. It used to be thirty or forty years ago
that even if you didn't have a very strong Bible teaching church in your area
there would be one that was acceptable. You could get additional teachings
through tape recordings, things of that nature, and reading to enhance what you
were learning. It would give you an opportunity to be a part of the body of
Christ and to influence that body and to minister to that body.
We shouldn't
just go to church because of what we're going to get. That's self-absorption.
Never say, "I'm not going to go to that church because that pastor doesn't
teach me anything." See, it's all about me, me, me.
The pastor may be a relatively young believer. Maybe he doesn't know the Word
that well. Maybe he comes out of a background where he wasn't challenged to go
beyond the A-B-Cs in Bible teaching. Maybe if you were to get involved in that
church, and I know of a couple of examples where this happened, you would have
an opportunity to minister to people in that congregation. They were still
listening to Bible teaching on line and it gave them an opportunity to be a
vital part of the body of Christ and to have an impact on them spiritually.
Today we live
in a world where apostasy in the church is reigning supreme. You can go to many
large urban areas and not find an acceptable church. If you're in a somewhat
semi-rural area you may really have problems. I remember when I was at Preston
City someone e-mailed me on this and said, "Pastor, I live up here in
Vermont in a small town. I have gone to every church in town and the best
church around is the Congregational Church. The pastor there doesn't believe in
the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ but I've been going there because I
feel I need to set an example for my children that we go to church." I
told him not to go. You're compromising doctrine if you go to a heretical
church. The principle is that there are some churches that may be very
elementary and simple but they're right. You don't have to just hide at home
and listen to a MP3 player or listen on line where you're divorced from every
other Christian. So we need to be a part of a local body if at all possible.
Some Scriptures
that emphasize this are Romans 12:10, 16; 13:8; 14:13; 15:14; Galatians 5:13;
Ephesians 4:25; 4:32; 5:19; Colossians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 4:18; 5:11; John
15:13. You see there's this emphasis on the body of Christ and this
interdependency in the body of Christ so we don't live our spiritual life in
isolation. We live it around other believers.
We need to be
sensitive to who is a mature believer, who is not a mature believer and if
there are any issues that exist that may cause a problem for other believers.
This is the background. Next time we're going to continue Romans 14:5. Much of
what we have here is fairly easy to understand. We need to just remember the
basic issue is about loving one another and showing basic consideration for one
another, then we can easily work our way through most of these problems.