Weak & Strong

In 1923, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the major Christian denomination in Eastern Europe,

decided to update its calendar.

This decision caused a significant amount of distress among the church's members

because it was felt that changing the date of Easter

was breaking a millennia-old tradition for no good theological reason.

Consequently, the Eastern Orthodox Church split into two groups,

the new calendarists who accepted the new calendar

and the old calendarists who stuck to the old calculation of Easter.

Each group branded the others as heretics

and refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of each other's leadership,

seemingly breaking the church in two.

To this day, the split remains very real for those in Eastern Europe,

although the divide has softened in recent years.

Hey everyone, my name is Aidan and I'm a member of the congregation here at St Paul's.

I want to start off with that fun little historical story

because interestingly, in the last week,

the concept of a split or schism in the church is a very relevant one.

As just this week, announcements of a new diocese of the Southern Cross

created headlines like Australian-Anglican Church splits

in the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC.

This decision has come from disagreements between Christians around Australia

over the blessing of same-sex marriages.

And if you've got questions about it,

I'd recommend having a chat to our senior minister, Steve,

or watching the video he made this week,

which should have been sent out if you're on the mailing list.

But what a coincidence then that this of all weeks,

we're scheduled to look at Romans 14,

a passage that wants to answer a surprisingly very relevant question.

What do we do when Christians disagree?

The Bible's answer to this question is probably not what you'd expect

given the quarrelsome and curmudgeonly history of the Christian church.

But before we get to that answer, we need a bit of context.

So let me pray before we get started.

Heavenly Father, as we come to look at Romans 14 today,

let our hearts be open, our minds be willing to change,

and our spirits be eager to hear the gospel.

Amen.

If this is your first time joining us here for our Roman series,

or if you need a bit of a reminder of where we've been,

we're reading through Paul the Apostle's letter to the Roman church,

which isn't so much a letter as a deep dive into Christian thinking

on God, humanity, and the law.

Now, Paul hadn't actually met the Roman church he was writing to,

but he knew of them through friends who had visited Rome.

And the news he was getting was a bit troubling.

There was a divide beginning to form in the Roman church.

Christians and Rome had split into two camps,

based on a disagreement not over marriage or money,

but over meat.

If you look back at your Bibles with me,

Paul outlines this debate in verse 2 of chapter 14.

I'll go to the other one.

One person's faith allows them to eat anything,

but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

Apparently, there were two groups of the Roman church at this time.

Those who thought that it was wrong for Christians to eat meat,

known as the weak,

and there were Christians that thought they should be able to eat

whatever they want, regardless of where it came from,

which Paul labels the strong.

Now, this isn't a fight you'd find in many churches around Australia today,

but the pattern of this disagreement is something that has been replicated

in thousands, if not millions, of church throughout history.

On one side, those with a firm belief that some particular practice is wrong,

in this case eating meat,

look down upon others as less committed followers of Christ.

On the other hand, believers who think that the practice is fine to do,

i.e. are fine with eating meat,

show contempt towards their dissenting brothers and sisters,

viewing them as pedantic and needlessly judgmental.

So from disagreement on a theological question,

real problems can start to occur,

where otherwise healthy relationships are poisoned by bitterness,

judgment and contempt.

And it's into this context that Paul gives his answer

to the very relevant question.

What do we do when Christians disagree?

Paul's answer?

Practice acceptance, not judgment.

Have a look at verse 6 with me.

Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord,

for they give thanks to God.

And whoever abstains does so to the Lord and give thanks to God.

Rather than engaging in this feedback loop of negativity and animosity,

Paul offers up a radical new way of relating to each other,

a policy of acceptance that leaves judgment up to God.

Now there's a lot of nuance in Paul's plan

for resolving a conflict in the Roman church,

but throughout verses 6 to 8,

Paul keeps repeating his core idea.

Whatever you do, do it for the Lord.

If you've been a Christian for a while,

this might not seem particularly surprising to you.

A fundamental part of the Christian faith

is giving everything in your life over to Jesus.

But Paul reminds us here that

this doesn't just change how we relate to God,

it also changes how we relate to each other.

Who are you to judge somebody else's servant?

To their own master's servants stand or fall,

says Paul in verse 4.

And again in verse 10.

You then, why do you judge your brother or sister?

Why do you treat them with contempt?

For we will all stand before God's judgment.

Paul is telling the Roman church,

get out of God's chair.

If everything I do as a Christian is for God,

then I am a servant of God,

and I have no right to do God's job for him,

especially in the case of judging humanity.

Most importantly, if I see a fellow servant of God,

I have no right to judge my brother or sister

on whether they're serving God correctly.

Only the one they're serving can determine that.

I have no right to judge my fellow servant

because judgment is the Lord's alone.

All I can do in the meantime

is try and get along with my brother or sister

and try and work together to serve our Lord

in the best way we can.

For example, let's meet Alison and Ben.

Alison thinks that eating food in church

is totally fine,

since God made food for us to enjoy

and the building in which we meet

isn't particularly special.

On the other hand,

Ben thinks it's unbiblical to eat in church

because it's the building we dedicate

to worshipping God

and we should treat it with respect.

That's a pretty significant divide

between Alison and Ben,

and if Alison ever brings a sandwich into church,

then one day there might be some real tension,

some conflict,

and potentially even arguments breaking out.

But if both Alison and Ben

follow Paul's policy of acceptance over judgment,

Ben can accept that Alison is serving God

how she sees best,

and Alison can accept that Ben is serving God

how he sees best.

And both can trust that God will be the one to judge,

and so there's no need for an argument.

Instead, we're able to accept one another's differing beliefs

without breaking community.

But like lots of things,

replacing judgment with acceptance

is much easier said than done.

When someone turns up to church wearing something

or talking about something

or doing something we think is wrong,

how can we act biblically in that moment?

I think it's helpful to understand

some of the emotions that cause judgment.

And in my admittedly limited experience,

a significant amount of Christian judgment

seems to come from genuine worry.

Now, I'm only 24 years old.

I haven't experienced all of what life's got to offer.

I, you know,

don't have many deep insights into the human condition.

But even from this vantage point,

I can see that judgment doesn't often spring

from mean-spirited or malicious churchgoers.

In fact, in many circumstances,

experiences of judgment within the Christian community

come from one believer

being genuinely worried about the faith of another,

based on external assumptions about their life.

We have a sense that if someone isn't serving God

as best they could,

they have a deeply held belief that we know to be wrong,

potentially their faith is at risk.

And they need to be made aware of their mistake

as soon as possible.

Because we genuinely care about them

as our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

But if that's you,

if you are someone who feels called

to take that sort of action,

the challenge in this passage

is actually to entrust that job to God.

Let the Lord take care of judging their faith,

because ultimately,

He is the one who maintains and sustains it.

Don't stop caring about your church family,

and by no means,

don't stop checking in on how they're going with Jesus.

But we need to stop worrying about the strength

of each other's faith based on what we do and don't do.

Judging from assumptions and guesswork

rather than genuine conversation.

And start learning instead to accept one another,

even if the way you live for Jesus

is different to the way I do.

I think Paul sums it up best in verse 19.

Rather than worry about judgment,

make every effort to do what leads to peace

and mutual edification.

So then,

in this new happy community of acceptance,

does this mean we should just accept

all practices of our fellow believers,

regardless of what it is?

Well,

no.

Paul's policy of acceptance in Romans 14,

its specific policy meant for a specific set of issues,

which calls us to make a careful distinction

between gospel issues and disputable issues.

Let's have a look at verse 1.

Accept the one whose faith is weak

without quarreling over disputable matters.

Ah,

so there's the qualification.

Disputable matters.

Paul's policy is specifically for disputable matters.

I think that'd be a really good phrase

to keep in the front of your head

because it's going to be a really important one.

What is a disputable matter?

Well,

let's start with the Bible itself.

Rather than disputable matters,

your translation might have opinions

or doubtful issues

or,

in the King James Version,

doubtful disputations.

These are different attempts to translate

the Greek word

dialogismoi.

Now,

full disclosure,

I don't know biblical Greek,

but after doing some research,

a common consensus among theologians

like John Stott,

Kent Hughes,

and Tim Keller

is that the word refers to matters of practice

about which God has not specifically spoken.

Keller explicitly translated it

as meaning matters of conscience,

which he and the other theologians

take to mean as an action

which God has neither clearly forbidden

nor clearly commanded.

So the policy of acceptance

above disagreement

applies to practice

about which the Bible

is unclear

and ambiguous.

So,

lots of things.

The Bible only has so many words

after all

and was written a long time

before social media ethics

became a popular topic.

But it can sometimes still be difficult

and controversial

to figure out

whether something,

whether a topic of debate

is disputable,

is a disputable issue

that you can agree

to disagree over

or something

that is non-disputable,

something that needs

to be resolved

before continuing

in community together.

To give us a bit of a hand

with this,

I borrowed some guidelines

written by a London preacher,

Dick Lucas,

who outlines three principles

for identifying

a disputable issue.

Number one,

the principles of the matter

apply to behaviour

or to practice,

but not to doctrine.

Lucas' justification for this

is that Paul has just spent

11 chapters

outlining clear teaching

on the proper Christian beliefs

and worldview.

He's not suddenly

in Romans 14

inviting Christians

to challenge

what he's written.

Paul is addressing disagreements

over the way

people should practically

respond to this message.

Number two,

for a matter to be disputable,

there must be no

clear, relevant commands.

The Bible is God's

absolute,

final,

authoritative word

on the behaviour

that is pleasing

and acceptable to him.

The instructions in it

aren't optional extras

we get to choose

if we want to follow

when we become a Christian.

Within the clear boundaries

God has set,

we're free to debate

which is the better way

to live for God

and accept when

our fellow sister

or brother disagrees.

But if God has already

made his stance clear

on an issue,

who are we

to contradict

what he said,

even if we feel

uncomfortable

or angry

at his word?

Yet if there isn't

a biblical command

about a certain practice,

then that matter

might just be disputable.

And finally,

number three,

all...

Waiting for it,

there you go.

All issues are disputable

except gospel issues.

What Lucas means by this

is that Christians

have the true

and real freedom

to have different opinions

without suffering

exclusion or judgment.

Except if those opinions

modify the gospel.

If the gospel,

i.e.

faith in Jesus'

death and resurrection

becomes not enough

to achieve salvation,

if something additional

is required to be saved

and enter God's kingdom,

whether some practice,

behaviour or belief,

then that matter

is not disputable.

To be a Christian

is to be a believer

in the gospel.

And as Paul says

in Galatians 1 verse 9,

Galatians 1:9

if anyone is preaching

to you a gospel

other than what you've accepted,

let them be under God's curse.

So enough theory.

Let's have a go at this.

Let's have a go

at figuring out

whether an issue

is disputable or not.

Can we agree

to disagree on it

or does it need

to be resolved

for continuing

in community?

Now I'm not looking

to figure out whether...

I'm not looking

to figure out

what is right

and wrong on this issue.

That's important.

But it's also important

to know what type

of issue this is.

So imagine Ben

from earlier

has turned up to church

and said,

all Christians

must wear shoes

while in church.

No bare feet allowed.

Anyone who comes

into church

needs to put on shoes

before coming

to worship God.

I want you to turn

to the person next to you

and have a chat

about whether

wearing shoes in church

is a disputable issue.

If you're at home,

turn to the people

next to you

or have a good think

on this topic.

And I want you to try

and justify your position

either using the guidelines

that will be on the screen

or other thoughts

you might have.

Since it's a bit

of a bigger topic,

I'll give you

three, four minutes

to have a chat about it

and then we'll come back.

So have a chat.

All right.

Let's come back.

For the record,

I think wearing shoes

in church is a disputable issue

and something we can agree

to disagree on

because it's about practice.

Because one,

it's about practice.

Two, as far as I know,

there's nothing specific

in the Bible

to the covering of feet

in church

and it doesn't add

or take away

from the gospel message.

But I think your instincts

on that question

may have highlighted something

about where you lie

on something I'm calling

the disputable scale.

On one end of the spectrum

is the tendency to mark

everything as disputable,

often associated

with more liberal theology.

This is where every issue,

no matter how big,

small or central

to the gospel,

can be smoothened over

by some magic church policy,

even if it means compromising

on the central message

of the gospel.

While on the other end

is fundamentalism,

where nothing is disputable

and those who don't follow

the exact same practices

and behaviours of you

aren't real Christians.

Now it's unlikely

you're exactly at

either end of these spectrums,

but all of us

are somewhere

on this scale,

whether you're more likely

to prioritise tolerance

over truth

or conventions

over accuracy.

Now I'm a conflict avoider,

so my instinct is to say

we can agree to disagree

and avoid a hard conversation.

But if you're someone

who really cares

about traditions,

your instinct might be to say

that the way

we've always done things

is the best

and maybe the only way

to do things here.

Either way,

whatever side

of the scale you're on,

we all need to focus

on the truth

that can only come

from the Bible.

Making sure

that our claims

of whether things

are disputable or not

are solely based

on its truth,

not on our own feelings

or what we know

as normal.

So before claiming

something is a gospel issue,

take a moment

to think about

whether the problem

is disputable or not.

Because if it isn't,

then wise,

careful,

and considerate action

needs to be taken.

And if it is disputable,

then we need to follow

Paul's policy

of acceptance

over judgment.

So given that we've

talked through the differences

between disputable

and non-disputable issues,

what are some disputable issues

that we here

at Chatswood

are likely to face?

What are some

disputable issues

that are relevant

to us in this building?

Well, as much as it's been

an important topic

in the last week,

Paul's policy

of acceptance

over judgment

is always going

to be significant

for St. Paul's

because as Steve said

at the beginning

of the year,

we are striving

to be a supernatural

community.

One where our community

isn't just made up

of people who are

similar to each other,

but a multicultural one.

One that is both

diverse and unified

at the same time.

But that's a challenging

aim.

Because with many

different cultures

coming together,

there are going to be

some big differences

about what we view

as acceptable

and unacceptable

behaviours.

What type of clothes

is it okay to wear?

What does respecting

your parents look like?

What does hospitality mean?

What does church look like?

What type of songs

do we sing?

What do we expect

of our leaders?

How do we do communion?

What language

do we read the Bible in?

With people coming

to St. Paul's

from the multitude

of cultures around Chatswood,

it seems inevitable

that we'll face conflict

over the right way

to live as a Christian.

Indeed, I'm sure

there have already

been many disagreements

over church practice

in the years

that St. Paul's

has been going.

So how are we

still here together

as a church

despite these arguments

and how can we

make sure

that St. Paul's

remains both diverse

and unified?

Well, Paul's

answer is simple.

Don't be a stumbling block

for God's good work.

Have a look at

verse 20 with me.

Do not destroy

the work of God

for the sake of food.

All food is clean,

but it is wrong

for a person

to eat anything

that causes

someone else

to stumble.

Remember the two groups

I mentioned earlier?

Those that thought

eating meat was sinful

and those that thought

it was fine?

Well, Paul's clearly

in the second group

believing that Jesus

has made all things clean.

But he goes on

to say here

that even though

he knows he is right,

membership in the

kingdom of God

is not first and foremost

about being proven correct.

No, the priority

for those living for God

is caring for others.

See, we've already

talked about the general

case of what to do

if two Christians

disagree,

but we're talking about

the specific case

where you know

what's right

and you see someone

doing something

you disagree with.

Realistically,

if you view

a fellow believer

doing something

you know is wrong,

your instinct won't be

oh, they're just doing

things differently to me.

Your instinct will be

that's wrong.

Now, Australian society

is very clear

on what to do

in a situation like this.

It only takes one look

at Twitter or Facebook

to see that if I am right,

it's my responsibility

to prove myself right.

Get the other person

to acknowledge

their own wrongness

and then if they refuse

to change their mind

immediately,

I should ridicule them

for being wrong

or at least say something

along the lines

of typical liberal snowflake

or typical right-wing nutjob.

The Bible's answer

on the other hand

is radically different.

Think of the needs

of the other person first.

Do what's best

for the faith

of your brother or sister

even if it means

limiting your own liberty

or accepting actions

you don't agree with.

Don't jeopardise

their faith

or their connection

to God's church.

What if by doing

something you know

to be right

which they view

as wrong,

they become confused

about what God wants

and thus cause

to sin in other areas?

Or what if by calling

them out on a practice

you know to be wrong

but they believe

is right,

you tempt them

to unnecessary bitterness

and malice?

This isn't to say

that we should abstain

from upsetting anyone

in our church

lest the church

become whim

to the subject

of grumpy Christians,

but Paul is specifically

talking here

about issues

that will cause

the other person

to doubt

their relationship

to Jesus.

Here's some quick examples.

If you believe

that all forms

of music

are fine for church

but your Christian brother

is only able

to use one style

of worship

to praise God,

you should do

what is best

for your brother

and limit your liberty

for the sake

of their communion

with God.

On the other hand,

if you think

it's inappropriate

for Christians

to wear immodest clothes,

worrying about

the faith

of your Christian sister

who wears things

you deem indecent,

worry,

like help

their situation?

Or will doing it

behind their back

cause them

to feel judged,

guilty,

wrong for this congregation

and maybe wrong

for Jesus?

When it comes

to disputable issues,

put the faith

of your fellow believer

first over any need

to prove yourself right.

Accept them first

as your faithful

Christian sibling

and don't cause them

to stumble in that faith

because as Paul says

in verse 21,

it is better not

to eat meat

or drink wine

or do anything else

that will cause

your brother or sister

to fall.

So how do we take steps

towards this new

supernatural community

of acceptance?

Well, I think there's

two clear takeaways.

Firstly,

think very hard

before claiming something

is a non-disputable

gospel issue.

Often when we see

someone doing something

outside of what we know

to be normal,

it can feel like

a massive issue

because they're

disrespecting the church.

But before reacting

on instinct

and lashing out

in judgment or worry,

think back to those

guidelines for if

something is disputable

or not.

And if it is a

disputable matter,

then now is the time

to practice acceptance,

especially if you

disagree with them.

Remember what Paul

writes to the Roman

church.

Who are you to judge

someone else's servant?

Secondly,

remember that a church

of many cultures

is not going to be

a comfortable place.

To borrow another

Steve phrase,

we need to embrace

shared discomfort.

Paul encouraged

the Christians in Rome

to put away

their own wants

and desires,

put away the things

that make you feel

normal and comfortable.

If it means someone

else will be able

to continue in

fellowship with God

and with his church.

Holding unity

and diversity together

means doing church

differently to how

you've always done it

and doing it

with Christians

who do not live

the same way

you do.

It means making

changes to suit

those in the minority

because otherwise

it isn't truly

a shared discomfort.

And most importantly,

it means having

an accepting attitude

towards difference.

For some Pauls

to grow

in a multicultural

suburb,

it needs you

to commit

to acceptance.

Regardless

of what Christian

walks through

those doors,

regardless of

how they live,

regardless of

what they think,

regardless of

the disputable issues

where you disagree,

you personally

need to commit

to wholeheartedly

loving and accepting

them as your

fellow believer.

This is a big

and challenging task,

but it's the one

Jesus fulfilled

when he loved us.

And I pray

it's the one

we'll be able

to commit to.