11. Concentrated Romans (14:1-15:13)

See the bottom for the whole series.

Romans 14:1-15:13

• This section finishes showing the Romans what a transformed mind looks like. It also finishes the main body of Romans. In particular, these two chapters deal with Christian disagreements.
• Paul postures the discussion between the "strong" and the "weak." We should not, however, miss the rhetorical strategy here. In 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul's intention is to move the Corinthians more toward the behaviors of the "weak." Positioning himself with the strong makes them more sympathetic to the course of action he suggests.
• 14:2-6. Paul mentions some issues that Christians disagreed about. Some apparently only ate vegetables in their avoidance of meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. Jews and presumably some conservative Gentiles kept the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday. Those who have such convictions often believe everyone should have their convictions.
• Paul tells the "strong," those who do not have those convictions, not to look down on those who have them. Other Christians are God's servants, not ours. They report to him.
• 14:7-12. Here is one of the key principles of this unit. We all stand or fall before God. I do not stand or fall before you or even my church. I stand or fall before God. I live for the Lord. I die for the Lord. 
• Each of us will give an account to God. We will all stand before the judgment seat of God (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). As 14:5 says, "Let each person be fully convinced in his/her own mind."
• 14:13-18. What is the logical consequence of of this principle ("therefore")? It is that believers should stop judging each other for their personal convictions. In the flow, his focus is not on the weak judging the strong--those with convictions judging those without them. He is especially telling those without convictions not to judge those who have them!
• "I have been persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but if someone thinks something is unclean it is unclean" (14:14). Paul probably does not entirely mean this. It is doubtful that he would say that murder is a matter of personal conscience or the man sleeping with his father's wife in 1 Corinthians 5. This is a discussion that relates to those "in the Lord" and Paul might not consider those who would do such things to be in the Lord.
• However, Paul does take a relativist position on the disputable issues in question. He is not a "realist" when it comes to such moral issues. When it comes to the Jewish Sabbath or meat offered to idols, it is a matter of personal conviction. There is no universal or absolutist position on these. 
• So if you think the meat is unclean, it is unclean to you. If you think God requires you to observe the Jewish Sabbath, then you must observe it.
• Paul's view, as in 1 Corinthians 8-10, is toward those who might stumble because of someone else's freedom. It is interesting that Paul writes this chapter from Corinth to Rome and a copy of the letter would have perhaps been made to stay with him. Is it not likely that the Corinthians would have heard Romans read to them?
• Our rights and freedoms are not the final issue. More important than whether my conscience is clear is the effect my actions have on others. I may feel free to do all sorts of things. But if my freedom causes another Christian to stumble, I have failed.
• This is the second principle of the chapter. The first was, "Be fully convinced in your own mind" (14:5). The second is, "Do not put an obstacle or stumbling block before a brother or sister" (14:13).
• 14:19-23. We reach the conclusion. There should be peace between believers. We should build each other up. "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that will cause your brother or sister to stumble" (14:21).
• A third principle is in 14:22--you can be wrongly convinced.
• So these are the three take aways: 1) be fully convinced of your own convictions, 2) make choices on how to act on your convictions with others in mind, and 3) remember you can be wrongly convinced.
• 14:23 gives us perhaps the most revealing description of sin in the New Testament: "Whatever is not of faith is sin. In other words, sin is overwhelmingly a matter of intention. If you knowingly do something that conflicts with your allegiance to Christ, you have sinned. It is not the act that is really the sin. It is not the food, because all food is clean (14:20). Sin lies is in the intention in relation to your faith.
• 15:1-2. So the "strong" should not bully the "weak." They should want to build them up.
• 15:3-6. Jesus didn't use his strength to overpower his persecutors.
• Interesting statement on a purpose of Scripture in 15:4. Scripture gives us examples of endurance and encouragement that gives us hope. This seems to be the primary purpose of its teaching for Paul.
• The church should live with that endurance and encouragement in mind. It glorifies God for us to embody this focus of the teaching of Scripture.
• 15:7-13. Therefore, believers should consider each other legitimate, even when they disagree on various convictions. Jesus came as a Jew to fulfill God's promises to the fathers, but also that the good news might reach the Gentiles. There's perhaps some hint here that the Jew/Gentile divide relates in a broad way to the divide over convictions.
• These verses end with an almost hymnic chain of verses from the Old Testament in which Paul saw an indication that the Gentiles would eventually come to faith (Ps. 18:49; Deut. 32:43; Ps. 117:1; Isa. 11:10). 
• 15:13 is a doxology that concluded the letter body of Romans. 

____________________________________
I. Introduction
1. Romans 1:1-15

II.1 Who is Justified?
II.1.1 Humanity's Problem
2. Romans 1:16-17
3. Romans 1:18-32
4. Romans 2:1-3:20

II.1.2 God's Solution
5. Romans 3:21-31
6. Romans 4:1-5:11

II.2 What about Sin?
7. Romans 5:12-6:23
8. Romans 7:1-8:39

II.3 What about Israel?
9. Romans 9-11

III. Transformed Minds
10. Romans 12-13

Seminary PL26: Navigating Disputable Issues

This is the twelfth post on church management in my "Seminary in a Nutshell" series. In this series, I first did a section on the Person and Calling of a Minister. Now this is the twenty-fifth post in a section on the Pastor as a Leader (see at the bottom).

The previous post in this series looked at certain conflicts in the New Testament church as an example of conflict resolution and management. This week continues with Paul's approach to debated issues in his churches.
_________________
1. The earliest church had the Old Testament, but the Old Testament did not directly address all the issues of the day. It is the same today, where new issues arise and Christians have to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12) to discern what would most glorify God in our living. What kinds of things should Christians look at on the internet? How should Christians vote in relation to national debt? The Bible has no direct verses on such matters. We have to figure out God's will together.

In the New Testament church, there was also the matter of new revelation--or might we say final revelation. Jesus was the "last Word" from God in a way. God used the apostles and prophets of the early church to unfold the significance of Christ for the "last days" (cf. Eph. 2:20). It even took a few centuries more for the church to clarify issues like the nature of Christ and the Trinity, as well as which books actually belonged in the New Testament (e.g., Nicaea. Chalcedon).

2. Last week we saw some of the main fault lines of conflict in the early church. Most of them had to do with the inclusion of non-Jews, Gentiles, within the people of God. Ephesians 3:3-6 indicates that this inclusion came as a complete surprise to the Jews. No one saw this coming, that God would tear down the wall of the Jewish Law that separated Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14-16).

As we saw in the previous post, one of the most controversial issues had to do with table fellowship--Jew and Gentile believer eating with each other. Acts 15:28-29 sets out purity rules that made it possible for them to eat together. One of these stipulations had to do with meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. There were many, many sacrifices in the ancient world. The meat was not totally consumed in the vast majority of cases. The god got some. The priests got some. The person bringing the sacrifice got some of the meat.

But there were so many sacrifices that a great deal of meat ended up left over, and much of this meat made its way to the marketplace. This created a crisis of conscience for Jews and then for some Gentile Christians in turn. Do you buy meat from the marketplace or not? Is it important to find out where the meat you are being offered in a meal somewhere came from? Maybe we should all just become vegetarians (Rom. 14:2)?

3. In Romans 14 (as well as in 1 Cor. 8-10), Paul develops some fundamental principles for dealing with issues of debate in his churches. He did not treat all issues as "disputable" as "adiaphora" that was mostly a matter of individual conscience. One of the problems in applying his principles is that those who take the restrictive side of an argument often see their position as part of the essentials rather than the disputables.

And they may be right! When he gets to the end of Romans 14, he seems to recognize that a person can condemn him or herself by approving something they really shouldn't approve. So those who say a particular issue is essential rather than disputable can be right that an issue isn't truly a matter of individual conscience.

Such individuals can also be wrong. In Romans 14:5, Paul seems to consider Sabbath observance a disputable matter for Gentiles (cf. Col. 2:16). Think about it. He treats one of the Ten Commandments as a matter of personal conscience! [1]

4. What should we do in practice then? Probably we should treat issues as disputable where large numbers of believers consider an issue a matter of debate. That is not to say that we as an individuals should not be fully convinced that it is essential. It does not even mean that we cannot insist that members of our denomination treat an issue as essential. What it means is that we behave with love toward other individuals and groups who have a different understanding of that issue but who seem otherwise to be walking in love, faith, and hope. We agree to disagree.

5. So if there is serious disagreement among Christians on an issue of conscience, we should put that issue into the category of disputable matters in the vast scheme of things. Again, individual denominations can have their "convictions" about the right answer, even believing it essential.

But how are we to behave toward one another in such cases? Paul lays down three principles:

• Be fully convinced in your own mind. Faith is the ultimate justification.
• Do not let your freedom hurt the faith of others. Love is the ultimate ethic.
• Remember that a person can be wrong. Our understanding is fallen.

So, first, be fully convinced in your own mind (Rom. 14:5). On many issues, Paul says, the action itself is neither clean or unclean. "nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean" (14:14). And so Paul concludes this chapter with a basic understanding of what sin is: "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (14:23).

Sin is not primarily "missing the mark" of perfection. Where is that idea found in the New Testament? Sin is anything we do that is out of sync with our faith in God. Whenever we act in some way that does not glorify God in our intent, we have sinned.

So the first order of business in any conflict is for us to make sure that our own heart is right with God. Am I pursuing a stubborn course for selfish reasons? Am I really convinced I am acting from faith or am I only saying that so I can do what I want to do in my flesh?

6. In other words, we can be wrong. Before we pursue a course of conflict as a matter of principle, we should make sure our own heart is right. Similarly, before we pursue a course of freedom, we should make sure we are not deceiving ourselves. "Those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith" (14:23). Paul does not mean merely passing thoughts here--that's doubting in our hyper-introspective world.

Doubts here and in James 1:6 are not passing thoughts but divided loyalties. If you claim to have freedom of conscience to pursue a certain course of action but really are acting from a divided loyalty--half serving God and half serving your flesh--then you will condemn yourself with a freedom that is not real.

God of course is the judge. We cannot read other people's intentions, which is why we are not to judge others (Matt. 7:1). In conflict leaders must keep this fact in mind. We are sometimes required to be the gatekeepers of the identity of our church. But we can so so in love.

Is a person fully convinced? If there are agreed boundaries for my church, it may not matter. There are plenty of churches. Someone who disagrees with the covenant of my group can find another that has freedom on that issue. We do not have to unchristianize a person who chooses not to submit to our community convictions.

7. So let's say that an issue is disputed but our conscience is clear. We are acting from faith and in freedom of conscience. Should we proceed to do what we are free in conscience to do?

It depends. Love is the fundamental criterion of Christian ethic and action. So we must ask the question of how acting upon our freedom will impact others. Will my freedom negatively impact the faith of others?

Paul puts it like this: "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother [or sister] stumble" (14:21). So it is not just about my freedom or rights. I can be free in my individual conscience to do something and yet it be wrong for me to do it because of the negative effect in would have on someone else.

Paul does not mean, of course, ticking people off. We will no doubt anger some people when we act freely yet not hurt their faith. It is possible that my wedding ring would have offended some people at a particular point in time. Certainly I should not wear it in the desire to "get their goat."

But there is a big difference between people getting angry because they have a problem and causing someone to stumble. If I anger someone because I wear jewelry, but I'm not trying to anger them, then they are the one with the issue. But if I convince someone to drink because my conscience is clear and then they come to have a problem as a result, then my freedom has hurt a brother or sister.

So the question is one of hurting the faith of someone else, not offending someone in the angering kind of way. You can hurt someone because you are asking questions you can handle but they cannot. You can hurt someone by getting them to do something you are free to do but they are not.

8. So as leaders, we keep these principles in mind as we face conflicts. The faith of our congregations is the most important thing. I don't want my freedom or the freedom of certain people in my congregation to harm the faith of others. Paul sounds somewhat condescending, but he speaks of the strong as those whose consciences are clear and the weak as those who worry about certain issues.

As leaders, we need to work to keep the freedoms of the "strong" from hurting the faith of the "weak." This affects the way we speak about certain issues. Like God, we try to meet our people where they are. If they cannot eat meat, then we go vegetarian, so to speak.

When we believe some are wrongly convinced, we might carefully, lovingly, and tactfully try to prompt their conscience toward the Spirit. But the Spirit must do the work in the end. We cannot force a person toward conviction, and we ourselves may turn out to be wrong.

Everything must be done in love. Our corrective must be done in love. The freedoms of the congregation must be done in love. Those who think certain matters are essential often should restrain themselves in love.

Next Week: Pastor as Leader 27: Athanasius against the World

[1] The Jewish Sabbath was from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.

Leadership in General

• Categories of Leadership
• Styles and Traits of Leaders
• How does God lead
• Leadership Pitfalls

Strategic Planning

• The Mission, Great and Small
• Identifying Mission
• Casting Vision
• Vision Statements
• Thinking Missionally
• Evaluating Strengths
• Identifying Core Values
• Setting Goals
• Leading Change
• Evaluating Progress/Resetting Goals

Church Management

• Managing the Church
• Leadership in the Early Church
• Leadership Structures in Church History
• Church Position Descriptions
• Leading Healthy Teams
• Good Communication
• Hiring, Recruiting, and Firing

Conflict Management

• Causes of Conflict
• The Third Mark of the Church
• Basic Conflict Resolution
• Leadership and the Gentile Mission

Hebrews - Strange Teachings Today

Continued from this morning.
________________
... Again, the specifics of Hebrews’ situation may be far removed from our current world. When we get to the central point of Hebrews, we will talk about the urge to substitute other means of atonement for the only means that actually works, Christ. But a good take-away from Hebrews 13:9 is for us to be able to live with ambiguity. So many of us have a compulsion to fill in the gaps. We cannot live with unanswered questions.

But we simply don’t have enough information to answer many, many questions not only about the Bible but about Christian faith in general. One thing that has impressed me about the Roman Catholic Catechism is not so much that it is way off base but that the Catholic church has been around so long that it has positions on almost everything. How can Mary give birth to someone without sin if she wasn’t without sin as well? Wouldn’t she have had to be born without sin too?

These are questions that those of us in younger denominations probably don’t think much about. How many churches have split over the answers to ridiculously unimportant questions? Is it prideful to have a horse drawn buggy with color? Should we use newly invented instruments in church if they weren’t mentioned in the Bible? Does God remove the nature inside us that causes us to sin or does he only suppress it once we are filled with the Holy Spirit?

Hebrews reminds us not to get “carried away” with these sorts of obscure issues. This was exactly what the Pharisees of the Gospels did. They majored on the minor and minored on the major. Their priorities were out of whack.

But what is the major? The major, in terms of our behavior, is the love of God and the love of others. The major, in terms of our beliefs, are the key Christian beliefs about God and Christ boiled down in the creeds. The creeds have distilled for us the most important truths of Scripture, because the Scriptures themselves are full of many details that applied to specific times and places that are themselves the source of much disagreement among Christians. Ironically, the content of Bible itself is perhaps the greatest point of disagreement among believers today!

There is a great saying from the 1600s that says, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity.” While most everyone would agree that this saying is true, human nature inevitably then goes on to debate what is essential and what is non-essential! Some people have a very big list of things that they consider essential without question. Their lists are probably too big. Still others have a list that is probably too small.

I have personally resolved in the end to trust in God’s knowledge. When someone who believes in Christ feels very strongly that something is essential, I resolve to consider that issue seriously. This is especially the case when they seem to have significant passages in Scripture or the weight of Christian history on their side. Any believer who feels strongly about an issue deserves my respect and my consideration of their understanding—and the more of them there are, the more seriously I take it.

But there are other principles in play as well. One is that, ultimately, I am responsible for my faith with God. As Paul says of disputable matters in Romans 14:22: “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” This verse both indicates that we stand before God as a matter of our own conscience and that you can be wrong about what you think is okay.

Then there is the community of faith to which we belong. God made us to live in communities, and the person who removes him or herself from a community of faith is not likely to have a vibrant faith for very long. When we join a community of faith, as when we are a part of any community or society, to some extent we surrender some of our right to do things our way. Being part of a community means in part that we make the specific beliefs and practices of that community part of our identity. Certainly in the United States, there are so many communities of faith to join that we hardly have an excuse to join a community that violates our “essentials.” The person who can't find a church that suits them probably needs to begin asking whether something might be wrong with them!

But, again, what is a disputable matter? It is ironic that we debate whether it is essential to believe certain things are essential! I have personally decided that, because there are debates over what is clear in the Bible and because I am a Protestant who doesn’t put absolute stock in church history, I am just going to agree to disagree on some issues that seem to be essential to me but that are disputed by others, especially others who seem genuine in their disagreement with me. As with all issues, it is ultimately God who decides what is essential and what isn’t, not me. “Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.”