Small Logo Sound Teaching

HomeMembers OnlySound Teaching IndexSermonsStudy MaterialLinksPalm Content

 
Contact Stan!

Join Our
Mailing List!


Return to Main "Fellowship" Page

Return to Index of Bob Owen Materials

 

 
Bob Owen on Fellowship


Local Congregational Fellowship
Bob Owen
Temple Terrace, FL (March 28, 1996)


In Matthew 25, Jesus taught a familiar parable about a Lord going into a far country, calling his servants to him, giving them certain talents. Luke calls them "pounds." You're familiar that when he returned, he called them to him and said, "Give account." And the three of them said, "Lord, when you went away you gave us eight talents, five to one, two to another, and one to a third. And we've gained seven more. Haven't we done well?" No, you haven't read that. What you have read is that when the Lord returned, the five talent man gave an account for his five talents. The two talent man gave account for his two. And the one talent man gave account for his talent. The very obvious lesson from that parable is, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5, "so then each of us shall give account unto God."

If there is any one theme that needs to be emphasized for all of us, it is this: Christianity is an individual religion. And when we stand in judgment, we will stand not, "What did this local congregation do, what did the church accomplish during your life time," but what did you do? That's emphasized in many passages. In Revelation 3, when John spoke of the church at Sardis, God made the general observation that "none of my works were perfected in you." As a group, they had not accomplished...and yet he could say that he had some within that church whose robes were white, who were undefiled, and that God accepted. Judgment is going to be on the basis of individuals.

At the same time, God has not left us to flounder alone in this world. Obviously, the real anchor to our souls is the inspired word of God that's a "lamp to our feet and a light to our path." But in his wisdom, God provided that we would have relationships with our brethren. The most common relationship is that of a local church, functioning together. We read passages like Hebrews 10:25, "not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together as the manner or custom of some is, but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the day approaching." And I fear that we get off on a couple of things. "Wrong to forsake the assembly." It doesn't say that. What it says is, "Don't forsake the practice of assembling together." And then we get off on that "day," and get to worrying whether it's the Lord's day, or the Judgment day, or the destruction of Jerusalem, or every time the church meets, and we spend all of our time talking about that and miss the point of the passage. Couple of verses earlier, the writer had urged us to "hold fast the confession of our faith that it waver not." And why were we coming together? Why should they not forsake the practice of assembling together? So that they might "provoke one another unto love and good works." God, in his wisdom, provided that we meet together, work together, as local congregations, local gatherings of people. Best description that I think of for us today, local families of believers.

History tells us that there have been great abuses to both of those concepts. We live in an organized world. Our generations are probably as bad as any have ever been. Where the individual is lost, and everybody wants to do everything corporately. And sometimes we develop the thinking that what we do unto God is what we do as a corporate group. Now I'm not trying to de-emphasize our roles together in local congregations. Let me emphasize that. But don't get caught up in the idea that all of our work is what we do when we come together in an assembly. Really, we come together to be fed, to be encouraged, to be exhorted, to be admonished, so that we can live the kind of life that God wants us to live day by day.

The other abuse that history points to is the tendency to take that corporate concept and to develop it into some kind of an ecclesiastical body. Rome, of course, is the ultimate abuse, with a headquarters for the world. But even our brethren have never been immune to the idea of leaving the Lord's concept of the local church and going to a corporate level. I remember 40 years ago or so, when the church was wreaked with the division over institutionalism, that a lady in one of the churches out in east Texas suggested to some folks, "Why don't all these preachers just go to Abilene and sit down and decide on this thing so we can all know what we ought to do." We're not immune, brethren, to the idea of pulling our brotherhood together and functioning somehow on a brotherhood scheme.

I want to talk with you tonight, for a few minutes, about the concept of "Local Congregational Fellowshipping," and the importance that it has to us and the parameters that God has given us for it.

It's a delight to be with you. I'm honored to be invited to come and speak. As a matter of fact, I spoke on a similar topic here a couple of years ago, and was invited to come back and deal with this same issue again because it is a current problem. Brother Pickup mentioned to you Monday night that your young preacher is a little bit given to exaggeration and when he gets to talking about the preachers he sometimes gets carried away. But, those of us who preach have to get accustomed to that kind of thing and adjust to it. Why just two or three years ago, I had a ninety year old woman come up to me one time and say, "I've been going to church all my life and I believe you're the finest preacher I ever heard in my life." And I said, "Oh, Mother." You just have to learn to live with some of these things and adjust to it. Somebody says that compliments is like perfume, you're just supposed to whiff it, and not swallow it. So we try to accommodate it on that basis.

Well, this brings us, brethren, to a terribly important issue. What really is a local congregation of the Lord's people? What makes up a local congregation? How do you get what we commonly think of as a "local church?" Over in Acts the eleventh chapter, we have an account starting in verse 19 that those that were scattered abroad at the persecution of Philip, or of Stephen, pardon me, "travelled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch speaking the word to none save only to Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, when they were come to Antioch spake the word to Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them and a great number of them that believed turned to the Lord. The report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was at Jerusalem and they sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch, who, when he was come and had seen the grace of God was glad. And he exhorted them that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord, for he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord." I want you to follow that passage for just a moment. These men from Cyprus and Cyrene came and, what'd they preach? The record says, "they preached the Lord Jesus." When people responded, those believers, what did they do? "They turned to the Lord." Barnabas came and urged them that they would "cleave unto the Lord." The record tells us in verse 24, "that much people was added to the Lord." Now read on.

"Barnabas went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul. When he had found him, brought him to Antioch and it came to pass that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church." Wait a minute. Where'd the church come from? These men didn't go into the community and quote, "preach the church." Now, don't misunderstand. I'm a firm believer in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the functioning of the local congregations that come in the family of believers. But the thing that had been preached was the gospel of Jesus Christ. They preached the Lord Jesus. And when people obeyed the gospel, what happened? They became Christians. Like the eunuch on the way to, on the road down to Gaza. When Philip had preached to him, they stopped and Philip baptized him. When Philip baptized him, what happened to the eunuch? The eunuch became a Christian. Obeying the gospel makes a person a Christian. Where's the church come from? When the people begin to gather together, meet together, study together, worship together, work together, they become "church." All of us are acquainted with the fact that the word church means "a group, a gathering, a body of people." And where does that body come from? It's not some corporate entity that you come into town like General Motors would to start a car agency and you buy a piece of ground and put up a building and open and say, "the car agency is here." You don't come into town and build a church and then try to get some people and put in it. You could build a building and put people in it. But you can't build the church because the church is made up of the people. The term is a general name, a corporate name, it is a group name, like a herd. A farmer doesn't go out a build a herd and then get some cows and put in the herd. The cows are the herd. You don't build a church and then get people and then put in the church. It is the people themselves that make up the church. And when they had preached at Antioch, these people obeyed the gospel and the church resulted. Now, what does that group do? We read a moment ago from Heb. 5 that they assembled together for the purpose of worship of God and study and praying together. They came together on the Lord's day, ate the Lord's supper to remember the Lord's death and look forward to his coming again. While they were there they prayed and they sang and they taught the word of God together. And all of that was done, not just so they could go away and say, "We went through the five acts of worship." But they went away enriched and enabled because they had been taught and grounded in the word of God. And God brings us together in that family so that those who are mature in the gospel can help those who immature, so that they can grow up in Christ. A passage like Eph. 4, where in v. 11 and following, Paul says "he gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints." That's the word "maturing." For maturing, or developing or completing the faith. "Unto the work of ministering, unto the upbuilding of the body of Christ." Now listen to the language. "That you be no longer children, tossed to and fro and driven about by every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men in craftiness, after the wiles of the devil; but speaking truth in love may grow up in him who is the head even Christ." We have the inspired word of the apostles and prophets. We have the work of evangelists and pastors and teachers, the elders and teachers, those who are mature in the gospel, to work with those who are immature in the gospel in order to bring them to a state of completion. Now, question. If you have a local congregation, can you expect that everybody who is in that local congregation is already totally matured in Christ? Can you expect that everybody who is in that congregation has reached the state that they are fully instructed and fully committed to the word of God? In the cases that we have in the New Testament, in the cases that we have in the New Testament, there are abundant evidences, abundant examples, of local churches that were made up of people who were still immature, or who still were marked by the weakness of the flesh. And the purpose of our local working together is so that those who are grounded in the faith, what is it Paul said in Gal. 6, "If a brother be overtaken in a fault, you that are spiritual restore such a one." Those who are anchored in the word of God can help those who are immature, to bring them to faith and to knowledge. You've got cases like 1 Cor. 3, where Paul said, "I couldn't speak to you as full grown men, for you are carnal." They still had their minds on worldly things. They were divided. They had all kinds of problems in Corinth. The Hebrew letter talked about that, we mentioned a moment ago in Hebrews 5, "when by reason of time you ought to be teachers of others, you have need that somebody come and teach you the very fundamentals, the rudiments of the gospel of Christ." So a local church might be made up, as a matter of fact, generally would be made up, of some who are mature in the gospel, some who are quite immature, some who are walking straight according to the word of God, and some who are still battling the wiles of the Devil. Don't get the concept that you can't be in a local congregation unless you are already complete, unless you are already perfect. And that brings us to the real critical issue that we are dealing with tonight, namely, what about fellowship in the framework of a local congregation, and particularly the issue, what if there are some situations where brethren might even have differences among themselves and yet they're participating together in a local church.

I want to suggest, brethren, that the Bible teaches that there are some issues, and I've tried to emphasize on the chart for clarity's sake, and lest anybody understand, misunderstands, I am not saying that Christians can differ over all doctrinal problems. I'm not saying they can differ over all issues that would come up among brethren. But I think the Bible clearly teaches that there are cases where brethren differed in belief and in practice and yet they not only were allowed to continue working together but they were taught that they should continue working together. The classic cases, and we're going to return to these a little bit later in the lesson, the classic cases are 1 Cor. chapters 8 and 10 where Paul dealt with the eating of meats that had been sacrificed to idols. And Romans 14 where he dealt with the question of eating meats in general and the observing of certain days. In both cases, and as I say, we will return to these in a moment for a lengthier discussion. In both of these cases, you had brethren who differed in what they understood the word of God to teach. You had brethren who practiced something differently: one would eat, the other would not eat; one observed days, the other did not observe days. And they did it unto the Lord. And yet they not only could continue together in those fellowships, Paul taught that they ought to. Now please do not infer from that that it doesn't matter what somebody believes. That he's just acceptable in a local fellowship. Do not infer from that that you can have differences over any kind of issue, it just doesn't matter what it is, just as long as we throw the blanket of love over everybody we can continue in fellowship. That is not according to scripture. The Bible teaches the withdrawing of fellowship. The question is, when? Does the Bible teach that any time there is a difference among brethren ultimately they have got to come to a central theme, or an agreement, some kind of a general understanding together the same way, or they must divide. Now immediately somebody might remember a key passage of scripture, 1 Cor. 1:10, where Paul urged that there be no divisions among them, but that they be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment, that they all speak the same thing. I want it clearly understood. God's word does not teach one thing to one man and another thing to another. Truth does not contradict truth. Truth by definition is going to stand on its own validity. And God doesn't tell you to do one thing and me to do something different, or anybody else. And he didn't tell the people at Corinth to do different things. And Paul could urge them to be united together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The real problem that he was dealing with, as he went on the explain there was, they had factionalism among them in that church to where they were following men in Corinth. They really weren't wearing the names of Paul and Apollos and Cephas. They were wearing local names, he explains that over in 1 Cor. 4 and verse 6, when he said, "these things have I transferred to myself and Apollos that you might learn not to go beyond the things that were written." He didn't want to embarrass them by using their names. But when the crowd got together that followed Henry Roberts, they got together and they ate their Lord's supper (they turned it into a common meal), and they didn't care whether anybody else had any or not. And when the rest of the crowd came in, they couldn't care less whether the other crowd had any or not. It's in that context that Paul condemned for their division. They had a party spirit and a party practice in the church at Corinth. It's in that context, brethren, when he gets to 1 Cor. 11 and he's talking about eating the Lord's supper, that he said, "tarry ye one for another." He wasn't talking about the problems of Sunday morning and Sunday night. He was talking about the fact that when they came together in the common assembly they didn't even eat the Lord's supper together. One group went on without the....so the division that they had at Corinth was an open rift and following different members in that congregation. But Paul urged them that there be no divisions among them, that they all speak the same thing, and that they be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. But remember, in chapter 8 and chapter 10, he's going to deal with the fact that they had a difference in the church at Corinth. One man thought that he ought not eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. And Paul told him, don't eat them. The other man was eating the meats and he told him to go ahead. Now, what's the answer? When does the Bible demand withdrawing of fellowship?

I want to suggest that there are three cases, at least, in the New Testament, where we have examples of people being taught to withdraw.

In 1 Cor. 5, Paul says "It's reported that there is fornication among you, and such as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father's wife." Probably, a step-mother, but whatever the case, there was incest being practiced by a member in the local church at Corinth. And Paul said even the Gentiles know that that kind of thing is not acceptable. There are some sins, brethren, that are obvious sins to all, that are commonly seen as sinful. Paul goes on to tell them that this man should be put away from among them (v. 13). He says, "I've already done it in my own thinking. I've dealt with him in my own mind. And you ought to deal with him." Rather, he says, "You've been puffed up. You're not even ashamed of the fact that you are harboring a person who is living in an open immoral behavior." Now, does this passage restrict the action only to incest? No, in about verse 9, he goes on to tell them that you're going to have to deal with people in this world who are immoral. He says, "I wrote to you to have no company with fornicators, not at all meaning the fornicators of this world, for to do that you would have to get out of the world." He's not predicting space travel with that either. It was a figure of speech. You would have to go live somewhere else if you weren't going to rub elbows with the people of the world who might be guilty of immoral behavior. But, he goes on to say, "But if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or an idolater, or a covetous or a thief or a drunkard, no with such a one, not to eat." Now, what kind of eating is under consideration? It's a kind of eating that you might do with the people of the world but you're not going to do with your brother in the Lord. A lot of people have thought that that meant the Lord's supper. No. You don't eat the Lord's supper with the people of the world. But the implication of the passage is, you could go on doing the kinds of things with the immoral people in the world that I'm telling you not to do with this immoral brother. What was it? In order to show the immoral brother that the church did not condone what he was doing, did not endorse what he was doing, did not approve it, they were to cut off social relations with him. You don't go out to eat dinner with him. You don't associate with him in a common way, in order to act like everything's just fine. Remember, when you were a kid and somebody in the crowd did things that the rest of the group didn't approve of, and you'd sometimes give him the silent treatment? The principle is the same. We're not in the position to deny people the Lord's supper or to pass judgment on them in that sense. If a man comes into the assembly, we don't a right to lock the door, unless he's disturbing the assembly, or something like that, on a legal basis. But a church that accepts somebody who is living in open immorality, would undermine entirely any standard of morality in the church. So Paul said, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." On what basis could you appeal to people to stand for truth and to walk in the ways of righteousness if you are harboring in the congregation somebody doing things that everybody recognizes as sinful? Somebody might want to raise the question, "Well, today nobody sees anything as sinful." Think not? Ask Jim Bakkar or Jimmy Swaggart. Even the world that winks its eye at immoral behavior knows that people ought not be doing that. And you just let a preacher get caught at it and even the world says, "Uh Uh. Not to be done."

Brethren, if a local church harbors a member practicing things that is commonly seen as wrong, you have undermined the standard of authority, you've shamed the church in the eyes of everybody, you've destroyed any influence for good that it might have, by which it might appeal to people to obey the Lord. Paul said, "Don't tolerate that." What else?

In Romans the 16th chapter, verses 17 and 18, Paul said, "Mark and avoid them that are causing division, and giving occasion of stumbling contrary to the doctrine which you learned." He goes on to say, "They are such as by their smooth and fair speech beguile the hearts of the innocent." Is this saying, "Withdraw from anybody who differs from you on doctrine?" No. As a matter of fact, two chapters earlier in Romans 14, he was going to tell them that they should fellowship those that they had differences with like the eating of the meats and the observing of days. We'll come back again to those. But in Romans 16, he talks about those who were causing division in the local churches, whose teaching was such that it was driving a wedge in the local congregation, upsetting the peace and harmony, splitting brethren apart, and leading them into error. Paul said, "Don't tolerate that."

And then in 2 Thess. chapter 3, beginning in v. 6, Paul says, "Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not according to the traditions which you received of us." Does that passage teach that if any brother is doing something that you consider to be wrong, that if he'll not correct it, you've got to withdraw from him? If it does, brethren, then those brethren in Corinth who thought it was sinful to eat meats would have to withdraw from the meat eater. The brethren at Rome would have to withdraw from those who differed with them over the eating of the meat. Because they had to feel those things were wrong. If you go on in the context in 2 Thess. 3, Paul explains what he's talking about in their walking disorderly. And it's not just a matter anybody that does anything you differ with. Read on. He says, "We behaved not ourselves disorderly among you, neither ate we bread at any man's hands, or, for nought at any man's hands. But there are some among you who walk disorderly, who work not at all, but are busybodies." What was the situation? You had some people in the church at Thessalonica who had refused to work, probably they were looking for the imminent return of the Lord, whatever the case, they quit working, they refused to employ themselves. When they got hungry, they expected the brethren to take care of them. It's this passage that says, "If a man will not work, neither let him eat." You are not responsible to take care of the man who could provide for himself and just won't. And it was not just a matter that they had become parasites but Paul said they have become busybodies. They were spending their time as busybodies in a local church. I can't imagine anything that would be more disruptive to the peace and harmony in a local congregation than somebody who expects the church to take care of him, and without his doing anything, and he spends his time on the telephone or up and down the streets, stirring up brethren by being a busybody.

I want you to notice something, brethren. In all three of these cases, the person was in the group. But his presence became destructive or harmful to the group. I think we have emphasized the idea of withdrawal with the idea that it's the weapon that the church uses to see to it that somebody straightens up and walks right. Now, don't misunderstand. There is a punitive element in the withdrawing of fellowship. When they had withdrawn from the man in 1 Cor. 5, Paul writes to them in the next letter and tells them that "the punishment of the many had been sufficient and that they ought to accept that man back." The punishment of the many. There is a punitive element.

Now listen carefully brethren. The real thrust of withdrawing of fellowship is not just a corporate means of trying to get a member to straighten up. If it were, the corporate group would have to deal with everything where anybody differed. The real thrust is, you've got a member in the congregation whose presence has become harmful to the group. Either by shaming the church in the eyes of the world, causing division, upsetting the peace and the harmony of the group, or by compromising the consciences of others by virtue of his practice. And the principle is, you don't let a rotten apple spoil the barrel. You don't sacrifice the well-being of the congregation for the illicit behavior of a member. Now hopefully, its going to correct him. But you're thrust is not just a matter that "we're going to straighten him out." The thrust of it is, and the thing that triggers the withdrawing is, that person's presence has become harmful to the group. It's not just a matter that he's doing something wrong and we're gonna' get him straightened out. Now, I'm not trying to ignore a responsibility of brethren to take care of each other. We read Gal. 6:1 a moment ago. "If a brother be overtaken in a fault, you that are spiritual restore such a one." We have an obligation to try to help one another and those people who differed would have an obligation to try to teach each other and to stand for what they believed to be right. But withdrawal, ultimately, is to protect the group from that person's presence that has become pernicious or destructive. Now how can it do that? By bringing shame on everybody, like the guy in 1 Cor. 5, the incestuous brother. Or dividing the church. Or just causing upset disunity in the group, keeping everything all stirred up. I've used this illustration a number of times, but I don't know one that makes the point any better. Years ago, preachers used to have the big charts that were carried when you went in to hold a meeting. You put up those bed sheets. Remember them? One of those old charts, I remember well. Preacher used it to illustrate different members in a congregation. And he pictured it by a big old wagon wheel. He had the hub down here, spokes that went out to the wheel itself. Here was the spoke that went out. The spoke was good and strong. It started right at the hub, it went up to the rim and it could carry its load. Now that's the good solid dependable Christian that's always there and does things right and he stands for those things that are moral and he's upright in every way. He's the ideal Christian. Then here was another spoke that was about as big as a lead pencil. And you know it couldn't carry any weight at all. Here was anther one that was big but it had been broken and it was tied together with baling wire and you know it couldn't carry any weight. But the spoke that always got my attention was the one that started with the hub, it was big and strong, went all the way to the rim, poked through the rim about three inches on the other side. Now they didn't have motion on those bed sheets, but you could see it in your mind's eye, that every time that wheel turned over, you'd have to bump over this guy. Now, I want to tell you, there's many a congregation of the Lord's people that have spent years bumping over somebody. Oh, the guy may be straight on Acts 2:38. He may be straight on instruments of music and the institutional question. But he's kind of a clod in the churn to everything that goes on and keeps everything stirred up and torn up and destroys the effective functioning of that group together as a local church of Christ. It ought not be tolerated, brethren. And that would include the man who, like in Titus 3 is described as a "factious man." He can be factious about nearly anything. It doesn't have to be about some wild doctrine. It could be about nearly anything. It usually is about some teaching. But the factious man who divides the church or destroys the peace and harmony and the unity and the functioning of the group ought not be tolerated. Not that you're mad at him, but you just don't sacrifice the well-being of the group because of that individual.

Now, with all of that as a background, I want to come back to the basic question that we've posed tonight. Does our functioning together in a local congregation demand that everybody in that congregation see every single point of doctrine alike? And that everybody practices everything exactly alike? Open your Bibles with me to Romans the 14th chapter.

I think the case in 1 Cor. chapters 8 and 10 is probably the most familiar among brethren because we've spent more time in Bible classes on the book of 1 Cor. than we have on the book of Romans, for the most part. And in 1 Cor. 8 and 10, here was that man who thought that if you ate a piece of meat that had been sacrificed to an idol that somehow you were worshipping the idol. Paul explained, "No, there's really not a god out there." And saying some kind of words over that meat and burning it in a sacrifice to a god that doesn't exist really doesn't hurt the meat. But, he says, "If you think there's something wrong with the meat, and you eat it, you'd be wrong." So, he said if you think its wrong to eat the meat, don't eat it. And he said to the brother who understood really there's nothing wrong with the meat, he added another codicil. He said if you know your brother's conscience is offended by that, don't you do anything that would lead him to violate his conscience. Now that's more than just, "Don't you do something that he'll stand over on the sidelines, say, `Oh, that bothers me.'" That's not what offending means. Offending means to cause him to stumble. To cause him to eat the meat in violation of his conscience because he saw you eating the meat in your own practice. He said if the eating of meat would cause my brother to stumble, I won't any meat from now on. If it does. But in Romans the 14th chapter, I think we have the most definitive discussion of this same principle. And I want us to look at it briefly.

Romans 14 begins with this statement: "But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decisions of scruples." Drop down to chapter 15 and read verse 1: "Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good unto edifying. Christ pleased not himself.." and so on. The subject matter stays the same throughout the 14th chapter of Romans. Dealing with your brother. Dealing with a brother that is called weak in this case. What is the problem? What is the weakness? Not everybody sees it exactly alike and I understand that and all I suggest is that you give it your thoughts.

"Him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decisions of scruples. One man hath faith to eat all things. But he that is weak eateth herbs." One man's faith allows him to eat all kinds of food. But another man's faith will only allow him to eat vegetables, herbs. What is the weakness? My understanding is that one man's understanding and therefore his conscience was such that he thought it would be sinful if he ate any meat. Probably that was a hangover of old Jewish law, the prohibition of eating blood, and the rationale that if I eat any meat I've eaten some blood, and so I'll just not any kind of meat. Whatever the case, the man who was weak in faith would only eat herbs, or vegetables. The other man who is not weak, he's got to be the strong one, could eat all things. My conclusion from that is that one man had knowledge or understanding that there was nothing wrong with his eating the meat. The other man's knowledge, his understanding, was such that he thought it would be sinful for him to eat the meat. Now their knowledge led them to their convictions. And their conviction is the source of conscience. God didn't automatically put in every one of us a conscience that knows right from wrong on everything. We're taught things. We learn that it is wrong to steal or to cheat and do things of that nature. We're taught those kinds of things. Then, if we do them, our knowledge tells us we're doing wrong, our consciences burn within us. One man learned that there was nothing wrong with the meat. The other man had not learned that. Consequently, it bothered his conscience if he ate the meat. Now read on.

Verse three: "Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not. And let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth," (pardon the reading) "for God hath received him. Who art thou that judges the servant of another? To his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand, for the Lord hath power to make him stand." Now there was the first illustration with the eating of meats.

Verse five starts another one [tape runs out on side one. Some of the reading is lost on side two. tr]

".....Why dost thou judge thy brother. Or thou, again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of God. For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us shall give an account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge ye this, rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother's way or an occasion of falling."

One thing has been repeated over and over in that reading, and that is this. Each man is going to give an answer to God for his own conduct. Each of us will answer to God for what we do and what we believe and what we practice. Verse one says, "Him that is weak in faith receive yet not for decisions of scruples." How long has it been since that line came into your conversation? Probably been a week or two since you were talking to somebody on the street out here and said something about decisions of scruples, hadn't it? The only time I ever hear it is when I read Romans 14:1. What does it mean? "Receive him, but not for decisions of scruples." Really, what it's meaning is, accept him into your fellowshipping, but you're not accepting him to put him on the front row and grill him and conduct a kangaroo court to make him conform to everything that you believe. That's where he goes on to say, "Let each man be fully assured in his own mind." Each man is going to stand before the Lord and give an account. Each man is responsible to keep his own conscience. Now, I want to ask you something. Did these people at Rome have a different concept as to what the law of God was? Absolutely. One of them esteemed one day above another and Paul said he did it "unto the Lord." One man would not eat meat and it was out of regard to the Lord that he would not eat the meat. One man sat down at a meal, had meat on the plate, thanked God for it. The other man sat down with no meat, and did it out of respect to the same God. Now listen to him. "Each of you be fully assured in his own mind." You make sure that you keep your conscience. Now what about that other brother? You're not his judge. It is not incumbent upon you to enforce on him everything that is in your conscience. You may have a difference of understanding of God's word. You may have a difference of what you believe God binds on you. You make sure you do what you believe is right before God.

Now we read the first 13 verses in Romans 14. And in those fourteen verses, Paul has given an answer to men who had a difference of conviction. An answer that accommodated both sides. That told the man who thought it was sinful to eat the meat what he ought to do. That told the man who did not believe it sinful to eat the meat what he ought to do. Paul answered both of them. Now listen carefully. Before he told them that really there is nothing wrong with the meat. Look at verse 15, or pardon me, 13. I'm saying 14 and I mean 13. But that back in there. Fourteen says, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself save to him that accounteth anything to be unclean. To him it is unclean." It is not until verse 14 that Paul tells them that really there is nothing wrong with the meat. Now some brethren have taken this passage and they have said, "Well, you see, there's really nothing wrong with the meat." And that's true. You and I know that because of what the Lord says here. And they have concluded that the only time that the principles of Romans 14 could be applied today would be when we are dealing with something that is innocent within itself. The terminology that is commonly used is, "When it is a matter of indifference." Or when it is a matter of opinion. Let me remind you. That man at Rome did not think it was a matter of opinion. He thought it was a matter of God's law. And that his conscience was violated if he ate the meat. He did it unto the Lord. Now, some have said, "But, oh, but look at verse 4 it says that the Lord hath already (or verse 3) that God hath already received him." And they imply from that that that's Paul telling him that it is an innocent act. Not in this context. That's saying, "Who are you to judge that man? The Lord received him, he's the Lord's servant, the Lord is going to do the judging," and the next verse explains that.

The next verse, verse 4 says, "Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? To his own lord he standeth or falleth." That statement in verse 3 is not saying that the act is innocent so whatever the man does is still alright. What it is saying in verse three is, "The Lord accepted him into his family. It's up to the Lord to do the judging of him. And you're not to be put in the position that you're his judge." God's going to do that.

Now drop down again to verse 14 and following: "Nothing in the Lord is unclean except to him that deems it to be unclean and to him it's unclean. But if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died." Same principle as in 1 Cor. where he said, "if meat causeth my brother to stumble or to offend, I'll not eat any more meat."

Drop down now to verse 20: "Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean, howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offense, who thinks it's unclean. It is good not to eat flesh nor to drink wine nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth. The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgest not himself in that which he approveth." But, verse 23: "But he that doubteth is condemned if he eats, because he eateth not of faith. And whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Faith in this context is conscience. The man that doubts, his conscience is wounded because his understanding is such that he thinks it's sinful. Often, the word faith is used talking about the revelation of God. But in this context, faith is talking about that man's understanding and that man's conscience that comes out of his understanding.

Now, question. Do the principles of Romans 14 have any bearing on you and me today?

If not, brethren, why put all that in God's word? Obviously, it has application to us. What application does it have? I want to suggest that there are a number of issues among our brethren where differences have existed for many years. And yet brethren commonly have continued in fellowship together in a local church without dividing. Questions such as: artificial coverings for women. In all assemblies? Just when she prays? Carnal warfare: can a Christian participate in carnal warfare, does he have to be a conscientious objector, can he go into service but not be in combat? What about weddings and funerals in the church building? Or a television in the....hadn't heard that very often lately. Use to hear it all the time, whether it was wrong for a Christian to have a TV. What about watching R rated? Or what about watching the soaps? Or Geraldo? I hadn't heard this one in many days. But when I was a kid growing up there was a real issue as to whether it was alright to get out and play ball on Sunday afternoon. And a lot of Christians thought that was sinful. Can you have a Christmas tree? Give gifts? Sing Christmas carols? Observe Halloween? Dress your kids up as devils and spooks? Maybe you can say, "Why, all those things are just matters of indifference." Indifference to some. But matters of the law of God to others. There are some of those things that I think are sinful. Yet there are brethren who are on the other side of the fence on some of the same things that I think are sinful. There are things that other brethren think are sinful that I don't think are sinful. Do we have to divide? Now listen carefully.

If the principles in Romans 14 can only be applied in matters of indifference, then brethren the principles can't be used on that list. Because to the man that thinks a woman is taught, commanded, responsible to God to have an artificial covering on her head, it is not a matter of opinion to him. It's a matter of his conscience before God. He believes 1 Cor. 11 is binding on the woman today. And you can't satisfy him by saying, "Oh, well, that's just a matter of indifference." And Paul didn't try to satisfy the case in Rome by telling them it's a matter of indifference. He told them, "Each of you keep his own conscience."

Now does that mean that we ought not divide over anything? Absolutely not. There are some things that we are obligated to withdraw for. Is it a matter of withdrawing when anybody differs on anything? No sir. It's a matter of withdrawing when the behavior would compromise other people. We haven't gotten to this, and believe it or not, we will, briefly. But there is a difference in things we do individually and things we do collectively. What if someone wanted to bring a piano in? And I tell him, "Well, I don't believe in using an instrument of music in worship." And he says, "Well, we'll put the piano on this side and you sit on that side." Won't work. Using a piano in the assembly would compromise the whole group. But one man could eat meat and the other man refrain from meat, and they didn't compromise each other. You might have a Christmas tree in your house and I might refuse to have one in mine. I do have Christmas trees, by the way. But I might refuse to have one in my house. We don't compromise each other. One lady might come in and have an artificial covering on her head during service, out of conviction to God, and sit right beside somebody else who doesn't have a covering on, and it doesn't compromise their conscience. Some things are group activities, like the use of the instrument in the worship, or taking money out of the treasury to send to a sponsoring church arrangement. Some things are individual in practice, like the eating of meat or the wearing of the covering or other things. Does the practice compromise the conscience of others? If it does, brethren, it can't be tolerated in a group. Does the practice bring shame on everybody, like the incestuous man? If it does, you can't have that. Does it divide the church (and any topic could do that)? Does it disrupt the peace and harmony of the group? You don't tolerate that in a group. But when a practice is individual by nature, when it doesn't shame the church or divide the church, when an individual can practice one thing without compromising the conscience of his brother, differences not only could be tolerated in a local church but ought to be. On the ground that each man will stand and answer to his own lord, based on his own conscience before God.

And we are back to the beginning point that ultimately Christianity is individual religion.

Now I can't close without one other observation. "Oh, but that man's teaching something that's not right. And if he teaches something that's not right, he's a false teacher. And if he's a false teacher, I know what the Bible says to do with him." The man at Rome had to feel that the man who ate meat was a false teacher. And a false practice. Are we to divide over everything where brethren have a difference? And does the fact that you and I differ on something mean that one of us is automatically labeled as a false teacher? I want to tell you. God's word uses the word "false teacher" very sparingly. As a matter of fact, the only time it's really used is 2 Pet, the second chapter. And Peter didn't say "Anybody that just says anything wrong has got to be withdrawn from." What Peter said was, some people have come in among you privately, bringing destructive heresies, and here are some of the things that they did. Denying even the Master, lascivious doings, so much so that the way of truth was evil spoken of. They were covetous, they used feigned words, they weren't honest. They made merchandise of you. They walk after the flesh in the defilement...in lusts of defilement, they despise dominion, arrogant, daring, self-willed, rail at dignities, count it a pleasure to revel in the day time, revelling in their deceivings while they feast with you, eyes full of adultery, and so on. I want to tell you. That's the person that is described in scripture as a false teacher. I dare not come along and take an honest, sincere brother who, out of his personal understanding of God's word, believes that a woman is obligated to wear an artificial covering on her head, and it's before his God and out of his good conscience that he teaches that that's what a woman's got to do. I dare not look at him and label him as a false teacher in God's word and to give him the kind of treatment that the Bible gives to the person in 2 Peter 2. There's a world of difference between somebody who honestly, fairly, sincerely, respectfully goes to the word of God and says, "Here's why I believe this to be true." And if his practice doesn't compromise me, if his practice is not destroying the peace and harmony in the church, if his practice is not shaming the church in the eyes of everybody, let him stand to his own conscience and I can sit on the same bench with him and sing praises to God and eat the Lord's supper and neither of us compromises the other.

Brethren, it's shameful and disgraceful, when honest, sincere brethren who have given their lives to the study and dedicated application of God's word, and simply because they have come to a different conclusion on some issue and that issue is not something that does all those things that I just said that justify withdrawing, for somebody to assign the label, "He's a false teacher," and that if a church has anything to do with him, then the church is guilty of harboring false teacher. Paul told the church in Corinth, "Withdraw yourselves from that brother whose incest was seen by everybody as sinful." But in 2 Cor. chapter 12, Paul writes to the same church and tells them that there are some among them that were fornicators who had not repented. And he didn't say, "Withdraw from them." Now, he didn't say, "Ignore it." And I'm not implying ignore it. What he said was, "I hope they get that straightened out before I come, and if I come, then we'll deal with it at that time." The book of Jude has a scathing description of some false teachers who made mockery of the law of God, and who were to be cast out by the brethren. And in the closing verses of the book of Jude, Jude says, "But you, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep looking...keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." Now listen to verses 22 and 23. He's already told them what to do with the false teachers that are described much like those of 2 Pet. 2. He's told them to mark them, to put them away, to avoid them. But he said, "On some, have mercy, who are in doubt. And some save, snatching them out of the fire. And on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." Three groups. The marginal reading of the first one says, "And some refuse while they dispute, when brethren become raucous, disputing, when they reach the point that they are destructive to the peace and harmony," he said, "refute them, close their mouths." But he said, "And some save, snatching them out of the fire." They're in danger. Don't cast them to the wolves. Save them. "And some," he said, "have mercy with fear, hating even the garments spotted by the flesh." They've allowed themselves to be corrupted in the world. Be merciful to them. But treat them carefully with fear, lest you become contaminated also.

Does the Bible teach that there can be differences among us and yet we can continue together? I think the answer is yes. Does that mean that it doesn't matter what people believe, what they teach, what they practice? Of course that doesn't mean that. But when their practice is private, when their behavior is not disruptive, when their practice does not shame the church and divide the church, we need to work for ways that we can continue together, to study together, to work together, to pray together. After all, that's what we were brought together for, in the family of believers to begin with.

May God bless us with the right understanding. May God bless us with the right spirit.

Is it time for the preachers to get together and go to Abilene, and decide what all the brethren are supposed to do? No sir. Each local congregation is responsible to pass judgment on the situation that if it's destructive to that group, they deal with it. Otherwise, they treat each other as brethren who've got to give an individual answer to the God of heaven. May God bless us with good understanding and with good spirits of practice.

If you're not a Christian, and you've learned through your previous studies of God's word that you must believe in Jesus, and repent of your sins and be baptized for forgiveness of sins, opportunity is afforded you to render that simple obedience to the gospel by which you become a child in his family. If you're a Christian and you're out of duty and want the prayers of others in your behalf, we would urge you to come home while we stand together and sing.


Tape transcribed by Tom Roberts