"In Essentials Unity. In Non-Essentials Charity. In All Things Christ.": Part I
by Pastor Jim Lincoln on April 22, 2007
There is a phrase that has survived the test of time that goes like this, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials charity, in all things Christ." It's attributed to John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople in the 4thc. Augustine (5thc.) did some creative plagiarizing and put it this way, "Unity in things necessary, liberty in things doubtful, charity in all things." 1 Another spin on the same idea came from Peter Meiderline of the 19th c. Moravian church who tried to bridge bitter battles between the Lutherans and other Reformers. He gave this motto to his followers, "In essentials, unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
They are all saying about the same thing. Stand firm in things essential, be flexible on things not so essential, and let the love of Christ rule in all things. David said,
"How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity! It's like precious oil poured on the head...or like refreshing morning dew on a mountain side before the heat of a summer day. For there, the Lord bestows his blessing..." (Ps.133)
The opposite idea goes like this,
"Believe as I believe, No more, no less; That I am right, and no one else, confess; Feel as I feel, Think only as I think; Eat what I eat, and drink but what I drink; Look as I look, Do always as I do; Then, and only then, Will I fellowship with you."
I read where one group of Christians split over whether it was righteous to have one or multiple cups when celebrating the Lord's Table. Another divided over the rightness of having chrome on your car bumper. One group was called the "Black Bumper Brethren." Others divide over speaking in tongues. Then there are the splits over Calvinism / Arminianism and the finer points of eschatology. When the Free Church organized itself in America, it adopted this core value of Chrysostom, Augustine, and the Moravians:
"In essentials, unity, in non-essentials charity, in all things Christ."
What does this mean? In the next few weeks I hope to examine this phrase in light of the passage that gave it birth, Romans 14 & 15. Paul cared about the unity of this new church in Rome. It mattered because their peace and unity revealed the reconciling power of the gospel. A divided church discredits the claim to that power. This morning, I want us to look at Romans 14:1-12 and consider the controversy that could have torn the church in Rome apart. I want to ask three questions. First, what was the problem? Second, how should Christians who disagree on a number of secondary issues treat each other? Third, why treat each other this way? This morning, I'm going to look at these from a broad angle. I hope to fill in some blanks next Sunday.
First Question: What was the problem? Why were these Christians fighting? Look at verse one. "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats..."
First, their love for each other had grown cold. Paul's first admonition has nothing to do with the problem as they understood it. He tells them to welcome each other. He is still writing about what it means to love your neighbor. But now, he is talking about how to love your brother in Christ when you have strong disagreements over sincere opinions. His opening charge to welcome each other suggests that they had already stopped doing so. We know that the church in Rome met in different homes (16:5). Instead of enjoying the warm fellowship of hospitality, their love had cooled off. The word welcome means to receive or accept someone into your home, family, or friendship network. He uses the word two more times in this context (14:3 & 15:7). He's after a welcoming, receiving, and accepting fellowship. Roman paganism knew almost nothing of a love like this. Also, Paul had seen this failure of love in the church at Antioch. Peter and Barnabas stopped eating with Gentile believers for similar reasons. Paul doesn't want to see this happen again. Their polarization threatened the worship of the one true God who has given to us the gospel of reconciliation.
Second, they were hurting their witness to the gospel by the way they were dealing with their conflicts. Some were weak in faith concerning eating meat, drinking wine, and keeping certain days as holy. By weak, he means that their consciences were tender and sensitive about violating kosher laws of the Scriptures. Others (Gentile Christians) weren't bothered about kosher laws at all. Nothing about their identity was wrapped up in these things. Their consciences were strong or tough with respect to meat, wine, and special feast days. The weak might say to the strong, "You've become hardened, seared, and calloused to the ways of righteousness as articulated in the Scriptures." The strong might say to the weak, "Your conscience is way too sensitive to these things. You are too legalistic. You need to let go of old traditions and habits."
Paul lays out the problem in verse 2, "One person believes it is permissible to eat everything, while another eats only vegetables." Rome was saturated by paganism. Almost all the meat available in the city would have been offered at one shrine or another or dedicated in the market place by some pagan priest. Idol-temples were not only places of worship; they also served as butcher shops and restaurants. To avoid meat offered to idols practically meant to become a vegetarian. It was just easier for those who held to kosher law to just eliminate meat from their diet.
Now, Paul didn't remain neutral on the theological issue (cf. 15:1 "We who are strong..."). Theologically, he's on the side of the strong n this debate. But he has bigger fish to fry than whether he's right on wrong on that issue. They're treating each other with judgment and arrogance. They're not receiving each other or welcoming each other. And above all. they're not honoring each other's faith. How did they get to this point?
We know from chapter 15 that Jewish and Gentile backgrounds were fueling this dispute. Five years earlier, Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. Now, Jewish Christians are streaming back into Rome and the church. They are bringing with them their faith in Christ as understood through the lens of the Scriptures and their religious heritage.2
So, at the center of the dispute were the Jewish kosher laws of Scripture regarding food, both what to eat, how to prepare it, and with whom you ate it. When the Jewish believers saw the Gentile Christians happy eating meat when it had almost certainly been dedicated to an idol, they just couldn't believe what they were seeing. If Christianity was an entirely new religion, they might have been able to throw off the old beliefs. But it wasn't. Jesus was the Messiah; the fulfillment of the Torah. How could these followers of the Jewish Messiah throw aside the commandments that made certain foods forbidden in the law of God? The early church was struggling with what parts of the Scriptures remain binding and what parts did not. We still have debates about this today. It's not a simple discussion.
This was not a matter of earning their salvation by keeping the law. They aren't the legalists of Galatians. Paul nowhere calls them that here. For the Jewish Christians, it was a matter of maintaining their national identity and belief in the one true God in a city dominated by paganism on every corner. It's hard for us to image a city thoroughly saturated by paganism. This wasn't Jerusalem. There was no temple to the one true living God. There was nothing remotely tied to God or the history of Israel in Rome. There were thousands and thousands of pagan gods, and the entire culture was steep in pagan motivations and practices. There were no sign posts or symbols to Judaism anywhere in Rome to reinforce their religious heritage.
Three religious practices marked the Jews from the pagans: circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and the kosher laws about how food should be cooked and eaten. Keeping the food laws of the Scriptures was a way that Jews identified themselves as the people of God. The one true God had called them out of the nations to be distinct. In Rome, their Jewish identity was severely threatened. So, they did everything they could to maintain it. Also, in v. 14, it's implied that they thought that eating meat like this made them unclean before God. This issue was huge because their identity and their sense of holiness were attached to it.
You might say, "Well, why get so excited about a piece of meat or glass of wine?" Fair enough, but I could ask you, "Why get so excited about a piece of cloth that has red, white and blue ink on it? It's just a piece of cloth, right?" You see kosher laws served as their national and religious identity that set them apart from the pagans. To disregard them would be like asking us to let people desecrate the flag in the United States.
So, the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians couldn't find any middle ground on this. One said, "Why do you have to eat, look, and act like the pagans?" The other said, "Why can't you see that there are more important things in life than food offered to some worthless idol made of stone?" That's the fight. It's a good one. And Paul doesn't dismiss it or make light of it. He knows that it takes people time to adjust to and recalibrate their relationships when they are in conflict. So, he takes a lot of time to deal with it.
This is exactly what he expects mature people to do. When you hit a rough patch in your relationship, you may have to step back and recalibrate that relationship. Debby and I have done this many times in the last thirty-six years. As we have changed, there are things she's not going to put up with and things I wished she would do differently. And we do. We make the changes we can make. We don't say, "Hey, I don't expect you to make any changes and I'm not going to make any so... I'll see you later." When you do that you are merely showing that you don't have the willingness to do the hard work of recalibrating the relationship. You think it will be easier to split instead of doing the hard work of give and take. In the long run, you will just be putting off what inevitably will happen in the next relationship. Paul calls them to face these difficult differences, recalibrate their relationship, and he even showed them how to do it. But that was the fight. Do you honor kosher food laws out of respect for our identity as the people of God or do you just cast all that off as if it never existed? This question of what to leave behind in the OT and what to carry forward was difficult.
The second Question: How should we deal with each other when we have strong disagreements that are not central to the gospel?
First, work for peace and welcome. It's the first charge. Start opening up your heart and home to those with whom you disagree. It's the most counter intuitive thing you might do. When you disagree with someone what you normally do is stay away from them. Paul says, welcome each other. In v. 3 "God welcomes all believers."
Second, don't disdain and don't judge. (v3) Neither party should pass judgment on the other because God has welcomed both. The meat eater must not disdain or look down on the vegetarian. To disdain is like that feeling you get when you're behind someone on the freeway who is driving one mph under the speed limit. It's looking down on them for not keeping up. They're afraid to drive faster...they may be timid or weak. The tendency may be for the strong to look down on the weak. On the other hand, the non-eater shouldn't condemn the eater. The weak conscience brother may be inclined toward judgmentalism. These folks score a huge "J" on the Meyers Brigg personality test. Paul says, "Don't judge your brother in this regard. He's not sinning by eating meat or drinking wine. God accepts him as he is in this regard. He stands in this regard as he hears from his master. Back off and let him serve his master as he hears him." Paul is concluding that the kosher laws are a matter of indifference and not universally binding. A matter of indifference is a matter that no church, church council, or pastor has a right to bind your own conscience about. That's between you and the Lord. I like what he adds in v. 5, "The Lord is capable of making him stand right." Maybe you should turn him over to the care of the good shepherd. And not play God in his life.
Third, Paul says, "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind". Now, this is interesting. You would think that this would just add fuel to the fire. I thought he was going to say, "Don't worry about it. It's a secondary issue. Don't worry about thinking too hard about it. It'll only cause fights. Avoid the subject and get on to more important matters." He doesn't. He says, "You need to study hard, pray hard, debate hard, and get it clear in your own mind what you think about it." God doesn't want you confused about what you should do in this matter. Paul didn't hold back his opinion. He didn't go underground (cf.15:1). But, he's not going to let his conviction about this dishonor anyone else. He's going to be charitable in his dogmatism and not bind anyone's conscience about it. He is going to exercise liberty and charity in matters that are non-essential to the faith. Paul, says, "Look, I've made up my mind about this but you pray, you study, and you decide for yourself about these things."
Notice how He honors those with whom he disagrees. This is beautiful.
Paul says in verse 23b, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." But he does not accuse the weak of sinning. They are acting from faith. Although their faith is weak on the issue here, their faith is God honoring and God exalting! Paul goes out of his way here to affirm and honor those who disagree with him on this.
Look at v. 6, "The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God." Did you see what Paul just did? Look at how much credit and honor Paul gives to the weak brother who will not eat meat or drink wine. Look at how much credit he gives to those who disagree with him. "The one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God". His behavior is directed to God. His intentions are to honor God. His motives are to please God with gratitude. The weak brother feels deeply thankful, not resentful, as he abstains. So, this weak brother is acting on faith, exalting God, and overflowing with thanksgiving to God.
Can you see how Paul is showing them how to resolve their differences? Paul is saying, "I know these Jewish Christians who are abstaining. They just want God to be honored to the hilt. They just want their lives to be lived, "For the Lord and His honor and glory." The same is true for those who eat. "People, in this respect we're all serving the same God."
Your brother who disagrees with you lives unto the Lord (8). This is the test, the Lordship of Jesus, not what you eat, drink, or the day you worship.
Can you see the wisdom in Paul's counsel? You and I are not going to agree on everything. That would make the church a very dull place. There are thousands of things we may not agree on. What's important is that we agree on those things that have eternal consequence: the essentials of the gospel. That doesn't mean that you give up your personal convictions. Paul encourages you to work on those so that you have a strong measure of confidence in your choices. Look, I believe there should be wine in the communion cup. Jesus didn't mince any words about that. But, the tradition of our denomination is to use grape juice for a number of good reasons and that's not an essential matter. If it isn't essential, I can be convinced in my mind and you can be convinced in your mind and one of us has to give way. I don't mind giving way.
There are hundreds of issues like this. I believe that if we take Paul's counsel here, think the very best in people, and give them the benefit of the doubt, even if we think they are wrong, we can discover a greater measure of unity. If we honor them as believers who love God and give thanks to Him, serve Him, and live for Him and His glory, we can enjoy a greater measure of peace and unity. If we treat those who disagree with us this way, I wonder how much of the anger, disrespect, hurt, mistrust, and division created by our differences over secondary matters of faith would melt away. I'm talking about the God given capacity to love each other in spite of our differences. Can you feel what Paul has done here? He has elevated, honored, affirmed, loved, treasured, respected, listened to, prized, and validated people as honorable and noble people of faith who disagree with him. He's protecting them with the deepest sincerity and yet he disagrees with them on that point of kosher law. He says that both sides are glorifying God in what they do. However, to not welcome each other doesn't glorify God. It instead, discredits the gospel of peace and reconciliation.
How do we treat brothers and sisters we disagree with on matters of indifference? We welcome them into our hearts and homes. We resist the temptation to disdain or judge them for their conclusion on such things. We encourage them to pray and study hard to come to their own convictions. And, we honor them, prize them, and cherish them as those who love the lord, honor the Lord, and serve the Lord with thanksgiving. We don't accuse them of being legalists unless they force their conclusion on us. We acknowledge their noble and loyal faith as something precious to God. And if we can do so, without diminishing any of this honor, we can have an interesting and friendly debate about the issues. OK, last question, why should we treat each other this way?
1) In verse 3b he says that we should not pass judgment on a brother in such things "for God has welcomed him." The very meaning of being a Christian is justification by faith. God has justified the brother by faith. He stands righteous and accepted by God. Beware, lest you treat him any other way.
2) In verse 4a he says, "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls." Your brother will give an account for his life before his own Master. Judgment is coming, and you better take heed of yourself.
3) In verse 4b Paul says that this disagreeing and imperfect saint--will be made to stand in the judgment. "And he will be upheld [literally: be stood (by God)], for the Lord is able to make him stand." The future of believers is not up for grabs. God will keep us and make us stand at the last day. Assurances like this make us nervous. We think if we tell people that God will hold them up, they will start slaking off. But the way God holds up His own is by giving them a heart to do just that by His grace. Beloved, He who began a good work in you will perfect it in the day of Christ. I didn't invent that verse. God gave it to us in his word for His glory and our joy. So, beloved,
"In essentials unity, in non-essentials charity, in all things, Christ."