submission to the church?

[RZehr]

Perhaps one of the mistakes we have made is attempting to legislate unity. This is not possible. It is possible, although obviously difficult, to legislate uniformity, but this does not necessarily produce unity. True Christian unity is only possible through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Of course this is true.
I'm not quite sure where you are coming from with this.
I don't think uniformity and unity are mutually exclusive. In fact, the existence of standards are evidence, or proof that unity was present - at least at the beginning.
Lack of standards prove less.

[Sudsy]

I'm curious as to how Romans 14 is interpreted by those who stress submitting to the local church in areas of sanctification. To me this says we, in the church, are to accept one another's sanctification practises and try not to be a stumblingblock in another's walk with God ? If correct, then when leadership strays from Romans 14, are we to still submit to that kind of leadership ?

First off, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with the Apostle Peter, when he says that some things in Paul's epistles are hard to understand. If Romans 14:1-14 is extracted from its context and examined as a policy all on its own will be confusing and lead one into error, potentially including individualism and rebellion. At first glance, these verses to seem to suggest a live-and-let-live mentality, where everybody does their own thing and we all get along famously.

But is that really what it means? I don't think that it does.

Let's take a look at the context. Romans 14 is really a continuation of a thought chain begun in Romans 13. In Romans 13, Paul discusses a variety of practical ways in which godliness manifests itself, such as obedience to the rulers of the land, and paying tribute. Stresses the importance of loving each other, and points out how that the commands of the law are all encapsulated in the command to love our neighbors as ourselves. He exhorts us to walk honestly, not engaging in the worlds practices of pleasing ourselves, but rather "putting on the Lord Jesus Christ."

At this point, Paul moves on to discuss two very sensitive issues, that of eating meat (likely referring to ceremonially unclean meat, or else meat offered to idols, it's not clear) and that of observing the holy days of the Jewish law. These were issues that the Apostles had already made a ruling on. They had been divisive issues ever since the first Gentiles received the Holy Ghost and were brought into the church. The leaders of the church had gathered together and made a decision, discerning that the Lord's will was to not require adherence to these points of the OT law.

Notice how gently Paul instructs the believers to treat each other on this issue. In verse 1, he instructs those holding to the official church position (which provided an allowance for this contentious practice) to accept those who weren't comfortable with this allowance and not to argue with them. He instructs those who aren't comfortable with the official church position not to be argumentative and judgmental of those who aren't as strict as they but are within the limits of the decrees issued by the elders at Jerusalem.

After this, from 14:15 - 15:7, he goes on to exhort the brethren not to insist on what they think are their liberties in Christ. He pleads with the brethren to bear each other's infirmities, to not place stumbling blocks in each others' way, and to ensure that in exercising their liberty in Christ that they don't provide excuse for others to speak evil of the gospel.

I am privileged to have had the opportunity to see this admonition lived out in real life. Christians who come together, binding their hearts one to another, working together to understand how God would have them show love to those about them and live out the faith in such a way that it gives a clear testimony to the world about them. Certain applications which they believe to aid in maintaining godly practice have been reduced to writing, helping to bring clarity to issues as well as providing a fixed reference point to help counter the tendency for practice to drift. Those specific applications which have been reduced to writing only encompass a small percentage of the daily decisions that the members of these groups make. In these other areas, the members draw their personal lines at various places, loving, caring for, and appreciating each other regardless of their differences regarding specific application.

In those areas where there the group has come to an agreement on a minimum standard, many members have drawn their own line somewhat back from that minimum standard, but do not pass judgement on all who don't apply exactly the same line they do. An example might be observance of Good Friday. Some observe it similar to Sunday, taking off from work and going to church services. Others might take a family vacation, others might treat it as a regular work day. Another example might be shopping at a place like Cabella's or Bass Pro Shops. Some would shun such places, not wanting to be seen in a place which traffics so unapologetically in things that appeal to the vanity of man. Others would have no problem stopping in to pick up a needed item, while others might have no problem browsing more extensively. All, however, treat each other as brethren and mutual love and appreciation flows.

There is also recognition that certain applications adopted on a group level don't necessarily reflect right vs. wrong so much as allow a common uniform practice, and within certain boundaries, others from outside that group who might apply the same biblical command with a different application can be accepted as brethren in Christ.

Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

Thanks Ken for taking the time to explain. You use the phrase 'those holding to the original church position' and 'the official church position' but where is this in the text ? I don't see where Paul is just talking to the leaders in the church but rather anyone who could be judging their brother on personal ways of following Christ. Especially older Christians and how they interact wih younger ones (spiritually speaking). This text, to me, is speaking to each individual Christian in how to interact with each other regarding our differences and allows for spiritual growth to occur and not be imposed or forced on anyone.

It is this need for the church to define an official church position ('the group has come to an agreement on a minimum standard') when talking about sanctification I don't find in the NT. The reasons for this add-to are honourable but I don't see where the approach to unity is about things like, for instance, what we wear. Scripture says not to draw the wrong kind of attention by our appearance, no further defining needed. Our unity and our witness to the world, Jesus said, is primarily by our good deeds and how we love one another. And the 'one another 'is everyone who makes up His Bride. If we all go about setting minimum standards of sanctification to adhere to in our little groups they will not be the same so how will this ever be a clear witness to the world ? To me, they can be a distraction and hindrance to good deeds and reflect the same kind of divisions Paul was warning the Corinthians to stay away from.

Well, I see many things man has added and taken away from early church practise that appear to me to be attempts to improve upon simple early church practise and in some ways I think it interferes with the work of the Spirit on individual hearts. We do need each other in the Church but we have put many dividing walls up within the Church even though they were made with some good intentions.

[Josh]

The NT itself started to lay out standards (not drinking blood). I don't see how it's unbiblical for us to continue what Paul and Peter started.

[silentreader]

Perhaps one of the mistakes we have made is attempting to legislate unity. This is not possible. It is possible, although obviously difficult, to legislate uniformity, but this does not necessarily produce unity. True Christian unity is only possible through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Of course this is true.
I'm not quite sure where you are coming from with this.
I don't think uniformity and unity are mutually exclusive. In fact, the existence of standards are evidence, or proof that unity was present - at least at the beginning.
Lack of standards prove less.

You misunderstand me perhaps. I am not suggesting that unity and uniformity are mutually exclusive. I am saying that legislating uniformity does not, or has little likelihood of producing Christian unity. I do believe though, and have seen it happen, that Christian unity, and especially with spiritual growth following, will produce a degree of uniformity at least to the extent of blurring the edges of intentional individuality.
If uniformity is an ultimate end rather than suggested guideline, it will only foster a new form of individuality as time goes on.

[silentreader]

I'm curious as to how Romans 14 is interpreted by those who stress submitting to the local church in areas of sanctification. To me this says we, in the church, are to accept one another's sanctification practises and try not to be a stumblingblock in another's walk with God ? If correct, then when leadership strays from Romans 14, are we to still submit to that kind of leadership ?

First off, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with the Apostle Peter, when he says that some things in Paul's epistles are hard to understand. If Romans 14:1-14 is extracted from its context and examined as a policy all on its own will be confusing and lead one into error, potentially including individualism and rebellion. At first glance, these verses to seem to suggest a live-and-let-live mentality, where everybody does their own thing and we all get along famously.

But is that really what it means? I don't think that it does.

Let's take a look at the context. Romans 14 is really a continuation of a thought chain begun in Romans 13. In Romans 13, Paul discusses a variety of practical ways in which godliness manifests itself, such as obedience to the rulers of the land, and paying tribute. Stresses the importance of loving each other, and points out how that the commands of the law are all encapsulated in the command to love our neighbors as ourselves. He exhorts us to walk honestly, not engaging in the worlds practices of pleasing ourselves, but rather "putting on the Lord Jesus Christ."

At this point, Paul moves on to discuss two very sensitive issues, that of eating meat (likely referring to ceremonially unclean meat, or else meat offered to idols, it's not clear) and that of observing the holy days of the Jewish law. These were issues that the Apostles had already made a ruling on. They had been divisive issues ever since the first Gentiles received the Holy Ghost and were brought into the church. The leaders of the church had gathered together and made a decision, discerning that the Lord's will was to not require adherence to these points of the OT law.

Notice how gently Paul instructs the believers to treat each other on this issue. In verse 1, he instructs those holding to the official church position (which provided an allowance for this contentious practice) to accept those who weren't comfortable with this allowance and not to argue with them. He instructs those who aren't comfortable with the official church position not to be argumentative and judgmental of those who aren't as strict as they but are within the limits of the decrees issued by the elders at Jerusalem.

After this, from 14:15 - 15:7, he goes on to exhort the brethren not to insist on what they think are their liberties in Christ. He pleads with the brethren to bear each other's infirmities, to not place stumbling blocks in each others' way, and to ensure that in exercising their liberty in Christ that they don't provide excuse for others to speak evil of the gospel.

I am privileged to have had the opportunity to see this admonition lived out in real life. Christians who come together, binding their hearts one to another, working together to understand how God would have them show love to those about them and live out the faith in such a way that it gives a clear testimony to the world about them. Certain applications which they believe to aid in maintaining godly practice have been reduced to writing, helping to bring clarity to issues as well as providing a fixed reference point to help counter the tendency for practice to drift. Those specific applications which have been reduced to writing only encompass a small percentage of the daily decisions that the members of these groups make. In these other areas, the members draw their personal lines at various places, loving, caring for, and appreciating each other regardless of their differences regarding specific application.

In those areas where there the group has come to an agreement on a minimum standard, many members have drawn their own line somewhat back from that minimum standard, but do not pass judgement on all who don't apply exactly the same line they do. An example might be observance of Good Friday. Some observe it similar to Sunday, taking off from work and going to church services. Others might take a family vacation, others might treat it as a regular work day. Another example might be shopping at a place like Cabella's or Bass Pro Shops. Some would shun such places, not wanting to be seen in a place which traffics so unapologetically in things that appeal to the vanity of man. Others would have no problem stopping in to pick up a needed item, while others might have no problem browsing more extensively. All, however, treat each other as brethren and mutual love and appreciation flows.

There is also recognition that certain applications adopted on a group level don't necessarily reflect right vs. wrong so much as allow a common uniform practice, and within certain boundaries, others from outside that group who might apply the same biblical command with a different application can be accepted as brethren in Christ.

Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

Thanks Ken for taking the time to explain. You use the phrase 'those holding to the original church position' and 'the official church position' but where is this in the text ? I don't see where Paul is just talking to the leaders in the church but rather anyone who could be judging their brother on personal ways of following Christ. Especially older Christians and how they interact wih younger ones (spiritually speaking). This text, to me, is speaking to each individual Christian in how to interact with each other regarding our differences and allows for spiritual growth to occur and not be imposed or forced on anyone.

It is this need for the church to define an official church position ('the group has come to an agreement on a minimum standard') when talking about sanctification I don't find in the NT. The reasons for this add-to are honourable but I don't see where the approach to unity is about things like, for instance, what we wear. Scripture says not to draw the wrong kind of attention by our appearance, no further defining needed. Our unity and our witness to the world, Jesus said, is primarily by our good deeds and how we love one another. And the 'one another 'is everyone who makes up His Bride. If we all go about setting minimum standards of sanctification to adhere to in our little groups they will not be the same so how will this ever be a clear witness to the world ? To me, they can be a distraction and hindrance to good deeds and reflect the same kind of divisions Paul was warning the Corinthians to stay away from.

Well, I see many things man has added and taken away from early church practise that appear to me to be attempts to improve upon simple early church practise and in some ways I think it interferes with the work of the Spirit on individual hearts. We do need each other in the Church but we have put many dividing walls up within the Church even though they were made with some good intentions.

Sudsy, here's the problem I have with how you're using Romans 14, and it may be a perception problem on my end but I keep coming back to this.
You are reading it to say that no one else should judge Sudsy in how Sudsy wants to practise and apply his faith in his daily walk, when it is actually saying, Sudsy, you should not judge any one else in how they want to practise and apply their faith in their daily walk.

...And I'm wondering if judgement as condemnation and judgement as discernment are getting confused. The one we have no right to do, the other is an essential part of the Christian walk.

[Valerie]

Aha! I see Mennonites attending there, are you one of them OJ?
Actually there IS a park on one side of the parking lot- a very nice park with a walking trail- there's a path connected to the Church

If I visited, it would be as a Stealth Mennonite. But I'm glad to hear the name is not entirely out of context; Google Earth let me down on that.

But it is what it is today- the falling away precedes the Second Coming- it's beyond being "One" until the Marriage Supper of the Lamb-

If you've given up on working toward unity and just want to complain about it, I guess we can't stop you, but it does get repetitious. However, if you wanted to lead by example and attend a church that has broader connections instead of just being its own brand, that would give your words more weight. Then again, maybe they are part of the International Neo-Puritan Fellowship or something, and just keep that as difficult to find as the park.

I am obviously not good at getting my point across- I didn't quote Ernie's point about Jesus message to the Churches in Revelations to complain about it- I was merely pointing out when he used that to convey that we should 'stay where we are and strengthen what remains' that regarding THIS particular thread- you cannot apply that to today- many of us have not 'stayed where we are' but have moved to other churches for this very reason- because they are teaching different things.

Josh- I don't know why you think Parkside is proselytizing Mennonites- I've never heard any such thing. Actually, I have heard him say positive things about Amish & Mennonites- even using them as examples (in a couple areas) so he's been more charitable to them, than you are to him?. I have only talked to one couple there that is former Mennonite- and they gave their reasons for leaving Mennonite for Parkside & it wasn't proselytizing that did it. They may, like us, recognize that Pastor Begg KNOWS the Lord and our hearts burn within us as he preaches- I don't find this just anywhere and we don't think he is infallible- but we do find sound doctrine there and when we have prayed with others in Sunday School there- we too believe these people KNOW the Lord- I think this is something we all appreciate wherever the Lord leads us to worship-

[ken_sylvania]

Thanks Ken for taking the time to explain. You use the phrase 'those holding to the original church position' and 'the official church position' but where is this in the text ?

I don't think I used the phrase "original church position."
Romans 14:1-6 discusses mutual brotherly kindness in relation to the keeping the dietary requirements and holy days of OT law. The Jerusalem Conference was some years previous, and the church had made a ruling on these requirements. I think that qualifies as "the official church position."

I don't see where Paul is just talking to the leaders in the church but rather anyone who could be judging their brother on personal ways of following Christ. Especially older Christians and how they interact wih younger ones (spiritually speaking). This text, to me, is speaking to each individual Christian in how to interact with each other regarding our differences and allows for spiritual growth to occur and not be imposed or forced on anyone.

I would agree that Paul is not giving instructions here for church administration. Rather he is giving guidance for how to interact on an individual level within the bounds of what is acceptable.

It is this need for the church to define an official church position ('the group has come to an agreement on a minimum standard') when talking about sanctification I don't find in the NT.

What exactly do you think Acts 15 is about? The church at Jerusalem provided guidance to help settle the unrest caused by various individual opinions about what was necessary or appropriate. The final decision included an instruction to abstain from eating meat offered to idols, which Paul tells us isn't actually sinful. That was a practical decision applicable to that time and culture. Today the church discusses and provides guidance on current issues.

The reasons for this add-to are honourable but I don't see where the approach to unity is about things like, for instance, what we wear. Scripture says not to draw the wrong kind of attention by our appearance, no further defining needed. Our unity and our witness to the world, Jesus said, is primarily by our good deeds and how we love one another. And the 'one another 'is everyone who makes up His Bride. If we all go about setting minimum standards of sanctification to adhere to in our little groups they will not be the same so how will this ever be a clear witness to the world ? To me, they can be a distraction and hindrance to good deeds and reflect the same kind of divisions Paul was warning the Corinthians to stay away from.

I'm trying to imagine how that conversation between a pastor and his wayward member might go.
Pastor - "Son, you're drawing the wrong kind of attention by your appearance."
Member - "What do you mean?
Pastor - "The Bible tells us not to be drawing attention to ourselves by the way we dress, which would include how we fix our hair."
Member - "What am I doing wrong? How am I drawing undue attention to myself?"
Pastor - "You're drawing the wrong kind of attention by your appearance. I'm sure if you think about it you can understand what I mean. No further explanation needed."

You see what I mean? Part of the work of the church, part of the way we demonstrate love to each other, is by helping one another along toward perfection. We speak into each others' lives, like Paul did with Peter when Peter got carried away by the division between Jews and Gentiles in Antioch, and as we see demonstrated in the epistles. Most church standards are a basic list of current ways that Bible principles apply to life in the culture we live in. Jesus never said "don't join the Masons," but even a weak Christian can understand why membership in secret societies is proscribed by NT commands.

I've seen a lot more division, distraction, hindrance to good deeds, and muddled witness to the world caused by those who insist that their religious practice is between them and God and the brotherhood can't tell them what to do. PA has a lot of "little groups," many of which set their individual lines at different places, but there is broad appreciation and respect across the spectrum.

[ken_sylvania]

Sudsy, here's the problem I have with how you're using Romans 14, and it may be a perception problem on my end but I keep coming back to this.
You are reading it to say that no one else should judge Sudsy in how Sudsy wants to practise and apply his faith in his daily walk, when it is actually saying, Sudsy, you should not judge any one else in how they want to practise and apply their faith in their daily walk.

...And I'm wondering if judgement as condemnation and judgement as discernment are getting confused. The one we have no right to do, the other is an essential part of the Christian walk.

Thank you for that, silentreader. My grandfather used to say that we're not to be judges, but we are called to be fruit inspectors.

[silentreader]

Two other things I want to throw out there for consideration...

It is in churches where there is (too much of) a focus on uniformity that NMBs have the most problems with integration.

This scenario is very similar to what the Jerusalem Council needed to deal with.

[MaxPC]

Notice how gently Paul instructs the believers to treat each other on this issue. In verse 1, he instructs those holding to the official church position (which provided an allowance for this contentious practice) to accept those who weren't comfortable with this allowance and not to argue with them. He instructs those who aren't comfortable with the official church position not to be argumentative and judgmental of those who aren't as strict as they but are within the limits of the decrees issued by the elders at Jerusalem.

In my opinion this is an absolute cornerstone teaching for both a healthy church community and the credibility of our personal testimony. Well said, Ken.

In every group, I've seen those who are self-appointed "enforcer of the rules." They lash out, snipe, snark and in general have no gentle manner with others at all. Without any authority they rush to correct others and yet make excuses to rationalize their own behavior. Paul saw this in the early church too and it reminds me that human behavior has followed the same patterns for thousands of years.

Thank God for the Bible to help us strive to be better and do better for the sake of the Kingdom.