Bob
Owen on Fellowship
Fellowship
Bob
Owen
Annadale,
VA (November 12, 1996)
(Tape begins).....that a passage of scripture that the Lord obviously intended to help us get along with one another has become the battleground over which brethren have differed and, to some degree, split. I have prayed to God and I will continue to pray to God for my understanding of scripture. And I will continue to pray to God for clarity in presentation of ideas. A word of explanation. I began making a special study, a particular study, of the issue of local congregational fellowshipping about 30 years ago. It was at the time that many of our brethren were embroiled in discussions on what we commonly called "grace and fellowship." I began hearing brethren make this statement: "Well, I can't be in fellowship with someone who's not in fellowship with God." Now, on the surface, that certainly sounds good. And obviously the fellowshipping that we commonly participate in is an outgrowth of what we consider to be a common relationship with God. But if we take the standard, "I can't be in fellowship with someone who's not in fellowship with God," that makes a demand of each of us to know whether every other person is in fellowship with God or not. We can't know hearts. We can't always detect when someone is hypocritical. Obviously, that standard would not be a suitable one. It's based on a common attitude about fellowshipping with God, and to that end, we try to have our best efforts.
That led me to a study of, and to crystallize some views with regard to local congregational fellowshipping. And, by the way, that's the scriptural fellowshipping... is local congregational fellowshipping. I have been preaching these same things for the last 30 years. Since that time, the issue of divorce and remarriage has emerged as a dominant theme among our brethren. I've continued to preach my lessons on fellowship. A number of people have concluded that I have developed thoughts along the line of fellowshipping in order to embrace some people who..with whom I might differ or they might differ, or we might differ on the divorce question. Lest there be any misunderstanding of that, let me make a couple of observations personally.
Number 1: My line of thinking has not emerged on the basis of the divorce issue; quite to the contrary. Number 2: I do not understand my view with regard to fellowshipping either to open doors or to encourage additional fellowshipping in the area of divorce and remarriage. I hold the old conservative view that the only grounds for divorce and remarriage is unfaithfulness. And to my knowledge, I have not fellowshipped people and do not fellowship people who are divorced on some other ground. If anybody interprets my views on Romans 14 or the other passages alluded to as loosening that kind of fellowshipping, you have misunderstood, because my view does not endorse or broaden that kind of fellowshipping.
Now with that as a background, let me pose the question, and time is of an essence. We are like the mummy: we are pressed for time. So, if you don't mind, we're gonna move rather quickly. And I'm talking to people who are very knowledgeable Bible students. And I think it unnecessary for me to take a lengthy period of time to establish the truths of certain passages of scripture that are familiar to all of us.
We're all acquainted with the fact that, among churches of Christ, there have been issues that have emerged on which we have had differences that have led to divisions among us: instrumental music in worship, church donations to organizations, the missionary society and the sponsoring church arrangement. There have been other issues such as Christians in carnal war, the head covering, observing (or whatever terms you want to use) or Christmas or Halloween. And brethren have differed on those issues, but we have not divided. Through the years, I began hearing explanations as to why we differed on those and did not divide, and brethren would say, "Well, the war question is a hard question. And we're just not sure." Or, someone would say, "Well, we're just not definite as to what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 11 with regard to the head covering, and because there are questions about it, we don't divide." I think that is an insufficient answer. I think there are biblical principles that lead us to divide in one category and lead us to differ and yet continue in the other category. And if I understand my own line of reasoning and the conclusions that I've drawn from my study of Scripture, I see the biblical principle that established that difference. Now, we're not just talking about those particular issues. There's a whole list. And others have built lists that are much longer than that, of areas where brethren have had differences and yet, through the years, have commonly been able to continue in fellowship together. We'll make copies of these later for you. Now some of these things, and I do not imply by including these things in this list, that all of them are innocent within themselves. There are some of those things on that list that I believe are violations of God's law, and that I would be on the conservative or "anti" side of. There are some things on that list that I believe that God has not legislated against, and that a Christian would be at perfect liberty to practice. I'm not going to go down the list and define all those, but I'm suggesting that you know, and I know, honest, sincere brethren who have differences in all of those areas, or in some of those areas. Why then, are we able to differ on some things and not draw lines of fellowship, but on other things, we have drawn lines of fellowship?
I'm going to suggest that the Bible teaches that on some, please note the emphasis, not all... on some issues, brethren may differ in their beliefs and practices and yet continue in fellowshipping. Now we're gonna come back with a lengthier discussion of Romans 14. But as the chart indicates 1 Cor. 8 and 10 (the eating of meats sacrificed to idols) and Romans 14 (the meats and days, so on) are passages that indicate brethren differing in their beliefs and yet there was not only scriptural authority to continue, there was scriptural direction to continue in fellowshipping. But I hope you know that I know that the Bible teaches that there are circumstances when we are expected to deny fellowship or to withdraw fellowship. Is it a matter that every thing on which we differ demands that we draw a line of fellowship? My view is, "No, that the Scripture teaches that there are some things where brethren may differ in conscience and in practice and still continue fellowshipping." That's going to be tested today, though, by some other views.
When does the Bible teach that fellowship must be withdrawn, and again, we are talking about local congregational fellowshipping, which is the only kind of fellowshipping the Scripture really talks about. In 1 Corinthians 5, we have a case of incest and Paul does not keep it only to the matter of incest, but broadens that list when he said, "If any man who is named a brother be..." But all of the things that are mentioned there fall in the category of immorality, of doing things that are a violation of the common concept of what is morally acceptable. I believe there is a key in 1 Corinthians 5, in verse 1, when Paul says, "There is fornication among you, and such as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one of you has father's wife." Now listen carefully, the world is not our standard for morality, God is. But our heads are in the sand if we're not aware that although the world may practice immorality, and although the world may be confused about what is morally right and wrong, the world still exercises judgment on certain moral things. If you don't think so, ask Jim Swaggart. Ask Jim Bakker. The world came unglued when two televangelists got caught up in immorality. I think that's the kind of allusion that Paul is making to when he said, "even the Gentiles" don't practice the kind of things that you're harboring in the church there at Corinth. And he teaches them that they are to withdraw their fellowship from that person. Put him away from among you. Don't let him be identified with you. Why? "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." If you don't take a stand on things that everybody sees as moral, on what grounds could you appeal to anybody for anything? Destroy the influence of the congregation. Can you imagine trying to reach someone with the gospel and yet harboring in the congregation someone who is practicing something that everybody looks upon as evil?
Is that the only thing? No. In Romans the 16th chapter, Paul says, "Mark and avoid them that cause division and give occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrine which you learned." He goes on to say, "These are those that by their smooth and fair speech beguile the hearts of the innocent." Is Paul saying, "Withdraw from everybody with whom you differ?" We're gonna come back to Romans 14 and I think obviously Romans 14 is going to say brethren had some differences and yet they were to continue in fellowship. But there are some things that demand withdrawal. What was it here? When someone, by his practice and by his teaching, is causing a division in the group, it is not, brethren, just "you're doing something wrong and we're gonna straighten you out." If that were the case, the fellow in Romans 14 would have to take that kind of stand. We'll come to that. But it's a matter that the body was being broken, the local fellowship was being damaged, people were being led into error, and there was a public expression of that, that everybody could react to. Paul said you don't tolerate that.
The third case is 2 Thessalonians 3. Years ago, I used verse 6 of that, "Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not according to the traditions which you received of us." I used to use that passage as the proof-text that either "line up or we'll ship you out." Like brother Kimbrough mentioned last night, like brother Chappelear has mentioned today, there are some things that I taught in the past that I don't teach the same way now. And I've asked God to forgive me and I hope I can clear it up with brethren as the case exists. If 2 Thessalonians 3 and verse 6, "Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly" is to be interpreted as some say, they will go to Vines, that's an old military word that means to be out of step - if you're out of step with the local church, you either get in step or we get rid of you - that wouldn't harmonize with Paul's instruction with regard to the meats and the days and the meats sacrificed to idols. When you read on in 2 Thessalonians 3, I think he defines, contextually, the matter of walking disorderly. He said, "We didn't behave ourselves disorderly among you, neither ate we bread at any man's hand, but there are some among you who walk disorderly, who work not at all, but are busybodies." I can't imagine anything more disruptive to the peace and harmony in a local church than someone who is a parasite, won't work, and expects the church to take care of him, and is a busybody. Gossip. Talebearer.
In all three cases, the person who was under discussion was in the group, but his presence became destructive to the group. It was destructive to the group either by shaming the church in the eyes of the world, undermining any standard of authority, any standard of morality in the group or driving wedges of division, or upsetting the peace and harmony in the group. Brethren, it was not simply a matter that that person is, in my judgment, wrong. Now stop a minute. Does that mean if somebody is practicing something that I think's wrong I'm just to ignore it? Oh, we've got this wonderful love of compassion that we throw over everybody and just say, "It doesn't matter what you believe." Of course not. I have an obligation to try to teach every man, every woman, what I believe that God expects of us in order to go to heaven. And when I have differences with my brethren, if I feel my brother is practicing something in error, I've got an obligation to try to correct that. Now, when I have taught him, if he doesn't change, must I withdraw from him? That's a critical issue. Yes, I must withdraw from him if what he is doing compromises me. Suppose he wants to bring in an instrument of music? And even though we've talked about it, he's still convinced it's alright, so he says, "I'll bring a piano, we'll put it on this side, everybody thinks it's alright sit on this side, and the others sit on that side." You can't do it with an instrument. Because you're talking about a practice of the collectivity. But suppose he says, " I think it's alright to have a Christmas tree" and suppose I say "I don't think Christians can celebrate Christmas" and I imply that to "have a tree." That's not my view, by the way, but I'm using an illustration. And he has a Christmas tree at his house and I don't have one at my house. Does that keep us from eating the Lord's supper together? Or singing together? Does it mean that when that question comes up, one or both of us has to be quiet, we can't express our views? No. It comes up in a Bible class. We're in the class together. He tells why he thinks a Christmas tree is alright. I tell why I think it's wrong. If either of us becomes factious, we're wrong. You know, you can be factious with truth. If either of us demonstrates a spirit of faction and drives a wedge and causes problems and all of that, we're wrong. But suppose in the framework of a loving congregation, where all of us are trying to please God, he says, "But this is how I understand that," and I say, "This is how I understand it." But the practice of it is not something that compromises either of us. He can his; I can do mine and we don't interfere with each other. If a practice compromises us, like taking money out of the treasury for use of some organizational effort or doing things that shame the church in the eyes of all, that cannot be tolerated. And frankly, certain moral issues come to play there. If participating together in a local congregation (I put an "if" in there), if participating in the efforts of a local congregation is going to imply my or our endorsement of something that we consider to be immoral, we can't do it. And a number of things with regard to the marriage question could and would come to play on that point. And a congregation must not do things that would imply an endorsement of somebody's immoral behavior. Now I want to tell you something, brethren, that demands a judgment call. Like it or not, a judgment call is made as to whether that implied or whether that would imply an endorsement. When somebody has a Christmas tree and somebody does not, I doubt that any of us would say that implies that the group is endorsing the Christmas tree. If somebody has been involved in moral problems, and yet the congregation comes along and uses that person in a public way, it very probably would raise the issue of endorsement. But there is judgment involved in that, as there is in every element of local congregational fellowshipping. If a person's practice compromises others, or brings shame on the congregation, if it causes division or destroys the peace and harmony of the group, then we are expected to put that person away. Now, if I understand the issue of fellowshipping, this is a critical point. Withdrawal of fellowship occurs when the presence of that person becomes harmful to the group. I fear that we may have made the appearance that withdrawing of fellowship is the ultimate big stick that the church carries and if we can't get you to conform to what we consider to be God's law, otherwise we get you with the withdrawal stick. Now don't misunderstand. We are fellowshipping for the purpose of encouraging and teaching and admonishing one another and growing together in service to God. But does local fellowshipping necessarily imply an endorsement of every person who is in that fellowship? It does not. And with that, we come to Romans the 14th chapter for a study. Open your Bibles to that passage.
The 14th chapter of Romans begins with "him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decisions of scruples." You're not accepting the person into the local fellowship with the view that you're going to have a kind of kangaroo court with regard to his views. That "we'll let you in but you're going to sit on the front row and explain to us everything you believe about everything" and all that. Paul proceeds, "One man has faith to eat all things, but him that is weak, or he that is weak, eateth herbs." He's a vegetarian. "Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not, let not him that eateth judge him," (pardon me, I reversed that). "Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not, let not him that eateth not judge or condemn him that eateth, for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest 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, another problem. "One man esteemeth one day above another. Another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth a day, regardeth it unto the Lord. And he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord and he giveth God thanks. And he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." They're both trying to serve the same God. One man sits down to a meal and has meat in that meal, thanks God for the meat. The other man sits down at his meal, and because of his respect for the same God, he won't have meat on his plate. And Paul says, make sure you keep your own conscience. Now the word "faith" is obviously used different ways in scripture. Some times it's talking about "the faith that was once for all delivered." Here, it's talking about a matter of conscience. It is not talking about "the faith," it's talking about "a man's faith." One man has faith to eat all things. And that's explained pretty well in verse 23, when he's going to say, "he that doubteth is damned if he eats for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Whatever a man does in violation of his own conscience is sin. Faith in this passage is talking about the conviction that an individual has. And Paul says one man has a conviction that it's sinful for him to eat any kind of meat. Paul says he needs to refrain from eating. Another man feels that it is legitimate to eat meat. Paul said, "Let every man be fully assured in his own mind." Now brethren, a lot of people are reasoning today that nothing can be considered under the principles of Romans 14 except matters that are of indifference. I have argued that some things, that to the people themselves are matters of faith, that is, conviction before God, they believe this is what the Bible teaches, can be included in Romans 14. Do not assign me that everything can be included, everything where there is a difference and you've got to take in instrumental music and church contributions, not so. But things that are private by practice, that do not compromise other brethren, that are not of public shame like the immorality, that are not causing a division within the congregation, things that can be privately practiced without compromising or dividing, each man is going to answer to his own God. Now, time is hastening.
Paul tells us that there was nothing wrong with the meats. And I want you to look at that passage. I don't know if you can tell, but one section here is colored in pink. I'm trying to get a different coloration. No, it's not very strong. In verses 13 through the end of the chapter, Paul tells the people at Rome that really there is nothing wrong with the meat. And some brethren today in interpreting Romans 14 say the only things that can be included in Romans 14 today would be matters that are indifferent to God. Question comes: what are those things? I've had many discussions with people who say that. "The only thing we can put in are matters of indifference." In every discussion I've had, every one, and I've had several, numerously, in every one the first thing that a person answers that area, "Well, things like the covering." Brethren, to me the covering is a matter of indifference. But there are numerous people who meet in the congregation right here to whom it is a matter of faith. When Paul gave his instruction at Rome, he answered the problem of both brethren: the one to whom it was a matter of faith (who thought it was a sin to eat meat), to the one who thought it was a matter of indifference (that it didn't matter). Now many brethren with whom I discuss that, "Oh, no, but wait a minute. Let me show you, brother Owen." And they look at verse 3 and they say, "Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him." And they say, "There's the proof. That told them that there was nothing wrong with the meat. God hath received them." I think that's a misunderstanding of the passage. Look at the next verse. "God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest the servant of another. To his own Lord he standeth or falleth." "God hath received him" is simply saying, "God has accepted him into the family." He's been baptized for remission of sins, he's a child of God, God's the one who's going to judge him. And that statement, "God hath received him" is not an explanation that this is a matter of indifference. It's a matter of saying, "He's God's servant, not your servant." God's the one who is ultimately the one who is going to judge him. And Paul doesn't get around to telling them that it's a matter of indifference to eat or not eat meats till he gets down to verse 13. Really, verse 14. He had given them a formula for accepting each other's difference in belief and practice before he told them "it's really a matter of indifference." And the truth of the matter is, he never did get around to telling them that about the days. He said that meats don't matter. But he didn't tell them the days didn't matter. Now think it through a minute. If the only things that can be included today in the principles of Romans 14 would be matters that are indifferent to God, what areas could they be...what areas could those principles help us today? If you say "the covering," well, that answers the fellow who thinks that the covering is not bound but it doesn't answer the man who thinks that it is bound. If you say, "the war question," that's fine for the man who thinks it's alright for a Christian to go into military service, or pull the trigger, but the man who has a conscientious objection to that doesn't think it's a matter of indifference. It's the law of God to him. And so that's true of every one of those points I've put up, where you know and I know brethren have differences in conviction today. Now, I've had this discussion with a number of brethren who want to, who say, that the only matters that can be included in Romans 14 are matters of indifference. And do you know what they say? In every case, they have said to me, "If I had the view that" (I'm not going to put in a name, but a well known beloved brother who believes that the covering is bound from 1 Corinthians 11 on any woman meeting in an assembly or praying), they've said, "If I held the view that that person holds I couldn't do what he does." And in one case, in writing to me, a person has said, "If a person truly believes that the covering is bound, then he would be obligated to teach that and other, and that he would be obligated to teach that which is fine, let him teach it. And he would be obligated to withdraw himself from all people who do not accept that in practice." Now, you think a minute. If only matters of indifference are covered under this principle, then brethren what the conclusion is (and these brethren are admitting that it is the conclusion though it's not being widely preached this way), the conclusion is every single thing that you believe to be a matter of law of God or every single thing that I believe to be a matter of law of God must be made a test of local fellowshipping. Don't worry about the money to build buildings. You won't need any. You can meet by your self in a phone booth and I can meet by my self in a phone booth.
I hope that no one interprets any of this as an attempt on my part to broaden our fellowship. Floyd couldn't remember how long he's preached, but he's getting old. I'm a Southerner. I figured mine out. And I've been attempting to preach for 50 years. That doesn't make me wise. And it certainly doesn't make me right. Neither does it prove the brethren have been right. But let me tell you something. What I'm preaching is what the brethren commonly have practiced for the last 50 years and before that too. And what I'm preaching gives a scriptural basis (and I think it's scriptural, not because I'm trying to present it but because I'm getting it from Scripture), a scriptural basis for brethren to participate together in the framework of local churches where there are some things where they differ. If you take the position that matters of faith cannot be covered in Romans 14, then you're logically forced to the position that every thing considered as a matter of faith must be made a test of fellowship, logically. But Paul's statement is, here's a brother whose faith, whose conviction, whose belief before God is that it is wrong to eat meat; here's another brother who can eat the meat, and yet Paul gave a formula by which they could continue fellowshipping together. Now does that mean that you can put aside every kind of difference? Absolutely not. And I return to the chart in closing.
Some issues are such that brethren might differ in their beliefs and practices and continue working together in a local church. Some issues demand a withdrawing of fellowship. Local congregational fellowship is the issue. We're not talking about the brotherhood. We're talking about God's teaching for the local church. May God bless us with understanding, with compassion, and with proper application. Thank you.
Tape transcribed by Tom Roberts