Peace and Mutual Edification Pt.3: The burden of the strong

Thus far we've looked at how we need to interact with the world around us, particularly with regard to civil authorities. Paul outlines this in Romans 13. Now let's turn our attention to another matter, how we in the church are to deal with one another.

Like with the secular world, we can expect to find conflict and disagreement from time to time. How we respond to these conflicts is of the utmost importance. First, let's look at the dynamics of the relationships. With regard to the secular world, God calls us to be "holy," or set apart. Yet in chapter 13, we see that even despite this separation, we are to be respectful and honorable toward our secular neighbors and authorities. In short, we're not to conform, but we're also not to disrespectfully defy or antagonize those with whom we have conflict. How much more so then should we take on an attitude of respect and honor with our Christian neighbors with whom we come into conflict?

Paul begins chapter 14 with a hypothetical conflict between a "faith-based" vegetarian, whom Paul describes as "weak," and one who "eats everything." Paul clearly paints the one who eats everything as the stronger brother here. In context, we can presume that this brother represents the one in a "new" relationship with Christ who enjoys the freedom this relationship brings. On the other hand, the vegetarian brother is maintaining a legalistic attitude from the old covenant. He has yet to realize the fullness of freedom in Christ. Given that context, it is interesting to examine Paul's words and his instructions to the "stronger" brother.

First note that his instruction is to the stronger brother, not the weaker. The onus here is clearly on the part of the stronger to not sit in judgment of the weaker. Paul's clear implication in the first eight verses of chapter 14 is that "strong" and "weak" are matters of perception. His advice echoes that of Christ who cautioned us to "judge not, lest we be judged." Paul is not relativistically asserting that one brother's belief is as good as another's, as some in the post-modern church are wont to do. No, Paul here clearly defines which point of view is "right" and which is "wrong," and he recognizes that these matters are "disputable." What he does address, however, is the attitude of the right to the wrong.

In the Greek, the world for "weak" Paul uses here is synonymous with "ill" or "failing." In other words, our brother's viewpoint is not rebellious or defiant, but it is one that renders him spiritually "sick." It implies not a permanent condition, that would require isolation or palliative care, but a temporary one, that can be improved depending on the "treatment" by the stronger brother. This should inform our response to our brethren in Christ with whom we have conflict.

How did Jesus minister to the sick, particularly the lepers and those whom society had given up on? Did he judge them incurable and leave them to die in their isolation, or did he come to them? Paul is clear here: even if we believe a brother to be in error, we are to respond to him in care, not with contention. He goes on to say about these matters of "dispute" that each is responsible to God for his own conscience. We must not pretend that out brethren are answerable to us, or that we have been put in a position of authority over them. Even as an elder, I must understand that God has appointed me a "shepherd," not a judge. Those with whom I deal are not answerable to me, but to God, the same as I.

How would this change the church if we were to adopt this attitude? I'll examine those thoughts next.

Peace and Mutual Edification Pt. 2

Romans 13 and 14 are written as the beginning of a new thought for Paul in his letter to the church in Rome. This is important to note, as sometimes we as modern readers get lost in "chapter and verse" and forget that Paul was writing a single document to an intended audience. He worked in "paragraph and sentence" not in chapter and verse. In context then, we see that these two chapters come on the heels of a profound conclusion from Paul: Love everybody. Bless those who persecute you and live in harmony with those around you. This reminder of the core of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is the foundation for the next two chapters.

Chapter 13 begins with instructions about dealing with civil authorities. Paul is crystal clear in this regard: We are to honor and respect those place in civil authority, as they are suffered to be there by God. This includes paying taxes and submitting to government authority. Now plenty has been written on this subject, not the least being the works of Martin Luther King, Jr. It is easy to excuse this passage by justifying rebellion against "unjust" civil authorities. We need to keep mind, however, that the civil authorities Paul is writing about here make Bull Connor look like Mother Theresa. If indeed, as is generally accepted, Paul is writing this letter during the reign of Nero, this admonition to honor those in civil authority is quite a weighty command.

Why then, would Paul instruct us to endure tyranny and injustice? The answer follows in what is the third full paragraph of Chapter 13:

"...whatever other commandment(s) there may be, are summed up in this one rule: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (v.9b-10 NIV)

This is the heart of the matter. There are many times that we feel righteous in our anger and rebellion, particularly against civil government. There is no question that we see injustice on a daily basis. We, however, are operation on imperfect knowledge, as Paul reminded the Corinthian church. Justice is not ours to dispense, or even to pursue (see 13:1-5) I would contend that Dr. King's policy of non-violent disobedience COULD fit into this mold. It is possible to resist the government without showing dishonor (see Daniel, Shadrach, et al).

I do think we need to think long and hard about how we as Christians react to the civil authorities. The unbelieving world is watching. Sadly, too many times, they see Christians acting not unlike themselves, engaging in petty politics and personal attacks. This is clearly what Paul was proscribing.

Tomorrow, we'll take a look at how we're to respond to community living.

George Will to Evan Bayh: Boom....Roasted

TERRY MORAN, HOST: There's a sense that something is broken in Washington summed up this week by Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) who announced his retirement. I think it's fair to say he's leaving in disgust. Here's what he had to say.

SENATOR EVAN BAYH, (D-IND.): I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is much too much partisanship, and not enough progress. Too much narrow ideology, and not enough practical problem solving. Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done.

MORAN: Is he right, George?

GEORGE WILL: Well, it's hard to take a lecture on bipartisanship from a man who voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, the confirmation of Justice Alito, the confirmation of Attorney General Ashcroft, the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Far from being a rebel against his Party's lockstep movement, Mr. Bayh voted for the Detroit bailout, for the stimulus, for the public option in the healthcare bill. I don't know quite what his complaint is, but, Terry, with metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments have one thing in common: The Left is having trouble enacting its agenda. No one when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security said, "Oh, that's terrible - the government's broken."

Peace and mutual edification

Ostensibly, the work of Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and their cohorts was to "restore" the church to its New Testament oneness. Chief among their various goals was to combat the fractious nature of denominationalism that seemed to have won the day in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. What has resulted from their work is hardly the unity that they wished to see, but even more fracture, and in some cases, a body dedicated to separating itself from the rest of the Church on the grounds of patterns and doctrinal minutiae.

Indeed, if we read the history of the Restoration closely, we will see that even Stone and Campbell differed significantly on key doctrinal matters, like baptism. Stone was not immersed until late in life, and even then, refused to profess baptism for remission of sins, instead following a more Baptist theology that baptism was the answer of a good conscience toward God. Even so, these men could put these issues to the side and work together for the good of the Kingdom. How could that be?

For me, the answer lies in Romans, chapters 13 and 14. Here we see Paul addressing the Roman church about matters pertaining both to their worldly relationships and those found within the Church. There is a single unifying idea in Paul's words here: honoring one another in a Christlike manner and pursuing that which leads to "peace and mutual edification" above all else.

This week, I'm going to look in detail at these two chapters, outlining how I see them as a true model for restoring the Lord's Church. I invite you to investigate along with me and participate in a dialogue (note I didn't say diatribe!). We need to be about the business of fulfilling Christ's prayer to the father "that we all may be one."

I'm baaaack

It's been a long time since I rock and rolled :-) A lot has happened since I last wrote on these pages. I've moved and taken a new job, so that has occupied a lot of my time. Most of you who read this know all about that stuff already though. I'm back though, sharing my daily introspections for those who care to read them. Even if nobody else reads, this is a helpful avenue for me to collect and voice my thoughts. Consider it an open diary.

In any event, I'll cover the same sorts of topics: theology, politics, sports, as my thoughts take me. Feel free to engage me in dialogue, or engage one another. If my writing can make one person's load a little bit lighter, then it's worthwhile.