YouTube video sermon

Romans 14:1-15:6

Cancel culture, have you heard of it?  The news headlines are full of stories showing the effects of it:

• James Bennet resigns from New York Times after Cotton op-ed backlash
• Canceling Harvard’s Steven Pinker – maybe not, but you could be
• Boeing communications boss Niel Golightly resigns over sexist article
• Constitutional law professor faces backlash after questioning Kamala Harris VP eligibility

Cancel culture is defined by Dictionary.com as “the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive.”  Based on that definition, the cancel-culture that appears to be a relatively new phenomenon is actually old school revisited.  The original cancel-culture was when humanity sought to cancel Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.

However you look at it, there’s no denying that the cancel-culture vibe is beginning to trickle down into our individual relationships.  Although I’m not on social media, every day, I hear about another post or tweet that starts out with the disclaimer, “If you disagree, just unfriend me now.”  Again, the irony is that this isn’t too different from the church that Paul was writing to in his epistle to the Romans.

Let me invite you to take your copy of God’s Word and turn with me to Romans 14.  Going way back to our first sermon in this series, you might recall that the church in Rome was originally started by Jewish converts to Christianity.  But along the way Emperor Claudius expelled the Jewish Christians, and Gentile followers of Christ moved into the church.  Eventually the Jewish believers were allowed to return and now you have a mixed Jewish/Gentile congregation, and one of Paul’s purposes for writing this epistle was to reconnect the church, to unify the body.

See, Paul knows that the church cannot be unified behind him in the spread of the gospel if they’re not one with another in daily Christian living.  It was Paul’s desire to visit this congregation soon after writing this letter, and he wanted to find a place unified in Christ and loving one another.  He was hoping that the church in Rome might unite with him in extending the gospel to Spain, and beyond, but in order for that to happen they needed to be united.

The same is true of us.  The same is true for Mountain Hill.  Unity among Christians is how the world knows that Jesus is our Lord.  Jesus said, “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).  May we become unified in the essentials, extend liberty in the nonessentials, and love one another in all things – that the gospel of the kingdom may go forth in power and purity to those yet to hear.

Unity Encompasses Liberty

The first thing that Paul emphasized was extending liberty over questionable matters.  Follow along as I read verses 1-12:

¹ As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.  ² One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.  ³ 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, for God has welcomed him.  ⁴ Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?  It is before his own master that he stands or falls.  And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

 ⁵ One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.  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.  ⁷ For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.  ⁸ For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord.  So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.  ⁹ For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

 ¹⁰ Why do you pass judgment on your brother?  Or you, why do you despise your brother?  For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; ¹¹ for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

 ¹² So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

The key to understanding Paul’s directive is the last word/phrase in verse 1.  The NIV renders it “disputable matters.”  The NKJ translates it as “doubtful things.”  And the ESV calls it “opinions.”  The original Greek word is dialogismos.  You might hear our English word dialogue, in there.  Its original meaning was reasoning that is self-based and therefore confused.  The term implies one confused mind interacting with other confused minds, each further reinforcing the original confusion.

Here’s why I say that this is the key to this entire passage.  If you just blindly read Romans 14:1-12 without understanding and discernment, then you’ll be tempted to come away from the text believing that it’s always and forever wrong to judge someone.  You’ll sound like the secular world when they quote Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that you be not judged” thinking they have a clear understanding of that verse.

Paul is not saying we should refrain from making any and all judgment calls.  Why?  Because just a few pages ago, in Romans 12:9 he told us to “Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.”  How, pray/tell, are we to know the difference between evil and good if we’re not ever allowed to make judgment calls and use discernment?

No, what Paul is talking about here is discerning what is right/wrong in matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture.  They’re matters of personal preference and historic tradition, which, when imposed on others, inevitably cause confusion, strife, ill will, abused consciences, and disharmony.  In those kinds of issues, we need to extend liberty to one another.

For the Roman church it was eating food sacrificed to idols and which days were considered holy.  And that makes sense when you think about the congregation of the church in Rome: Jews/Gentiles.  Jews grew up with very strict understandings of what could and could not be eaten and even how they could be produced and prepared.  And, of course, who could forget the fourth commandment to “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy” (Exodus 20:8).  But the Gentile believers didn’t have any of that baggage.  “BBQ ribs!!  Ooo, great!!  Never mind that it’s pork and it was sacrificed to a pagan deity.”

Does this problem exist in the modern church?  You better believe it.  Just think of the areas that have been “hot buttons” in the 20^th-21^st century church:

• Consumption of alcohol,
• Ownership of luxury items,
• Forms of recreation like movies, dancing, and playing cards,
• Christian school, homeschool, and public school,
• Length of hair and what to wear,
• Styles and manner of worship (screens vs. hymnals),
• Modes of baptism (dunking, sprinkling, infant, believer) and even
• To reopen or remain closed, to mask or not to mask.

Many tales are told about the greatest preacher of the 19^th century, England’s Charles Haddon Spurgeon, also known as the Prince of Preachers.  He ruffled the feathers of not a few Christians in his day by his lifestyle choices – particularly his penchant for fine cigars (a man and minister that I would have loved to share a stogie with).  Of course, compared to today, there was relatively little public awareness of the ill effects of tobacco on the body, but smoking with shunned nonetheless by many Christians – but not Spurgeon.  On one occasion, a young man approached Spurgeon and asked what he should do about a box of cigars that had been given to him.  Spurgeon’s reply (I love this), “Give them to me and I will smoke them to the glory of God.”

On another occasion, America’s greatest preacher, Dwight Moody, visited London and in conversation with Spurgeon, asked the British preacher when he was going to give up smoking those awful cigars.  Spurgeon’s reply (poking a finger into Moody’s considerable midsection), “When you get rid of this, I shall get rid of these.”  You must know, however, that these men were dear friends.  So, what sounds a bit harsh was really fun among colleagues.  (I must admit that a long look in the mirror and I realized I was behind in the count 2-0, so I stopped looking for more illustrations.)

As long as there is unity around the person and work of Jesus Christ and the biblically-based foundations of faith in Jesus, there can be sweet fellowship in the Lord.

Unity Evidences Love

In verses 13-23, Paul raises the discussion of food and sacred days to a higher level.  He began by suggesting that eating or not eating were equally valid choices; and they are, depending on where we are in our understanding.  But there’s something even more important in the kingdom of God than being right, and that’s to act in love.  Follow along as I read:

¹³ Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.  ¹⁴ I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.  ¹⁵ For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.  By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.  ¹⁶ So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.  ¹⁷ For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.  ¹⁸ Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.  ¹⁹ So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

 ²⁰ Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.  Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.  ²¹ It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.  ²² The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.  Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.  ²³ But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith.  For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Now I know what you’re thinking, because there’s a part of me that’s thinking the same thing.  Part of you is saying to the weaker believer, “Dude, grow up!  Girlfriend, get a life!  Y’all stop whining!”  But what Paul does here is to take the focus of responsibility off of what the weaker believer cannot do in good conscience and place it on what the stronger believer can do in good conscience.

I love Kenneth Boa’s illustration of this in his commentary on Romans.  He says, “The stronger believer’s conscience is like an umbrella that is large enough to cover the weaker believer’s conscience.  Therefore, the stronger believer has the responsibility to ‘cover’ the situation instead of asking the weaker believer to cover more than his or her umbrella of conscience can handle.”  And that got me to thinking…

We’ve all been invited out to eat with some friends or met up at a restaurant to celebrate a birthday and the waiter/waitress brings the bill, and sometimes there’s this fight that ensues to see who can pick up the tab for the table.  It’s like this badge of honor.  Now sometimes that’s done out of pride and arrogance.  It’s a way of showing off.  But if you’re among family or friends, sometimes you want to do that.  It’s a way of expressing your love to the group.  “I got this.  It’s my pleasure.”  That’s what Paul is trying to get us to see.  If there’s a disagreement with a non-essential of the faith, then the stronger, more mature believer should give up their position – not because it’s not right but because it’s the loving thing.

See, there are two extremes on this continuum of Christian liberty.  On one end are folks who think they have to legislate their lives and the lives of everyone around them.  That’s legalism.  But on the other end are those who never met a rule or guidance they thought applied to them.  They’re loose cannons, always creating problems on the basis of their “freedom” in Christ.  That’s license.  Neither is what liberty is all about.  The best definition of liberty is the freedom to lay down one’s rights or desires for the well-being of another.

So, unity embraces liberty.  There’s room for different opinions on non-essentials of the faith.  But unity also evidences itself in love when those non-essentials could harm or hurt a weaker believer.  The stronger should be willing to cover for the weaker.  Finally, Paul argues that unity follows the example of Jesus Christ.

Unity Exemplifies the Lord

After all, it’s the person and work of Jesus that united the Jews and Gentiles in the first place.  It’s ultimately the person and work of Jesus that unites any of us to each other.  So, by imitating the Lord Jesus we will bear with the weak and glorify God.  Follow along as I read this last section, Romans 15:1-6:

¹ We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.  ² Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.  ³ For Christ did not please Himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on Me.”  ⁴ For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.  ⁵ May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, ⁶ that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is one of those places where studying multiple translations is a good idea.  Many versions of Romans 15:1 say that we “ought” to bear with the failings or weaknesses of our brothers and sisters.  And that’s certainly fine, but it’s not the best – especially for today.  Dr. David Jeremiah, in his Living by Faith Bible study series writes, “Too many churches are caught up in what I call ‘the oughteries’: you ought to do this and you ought to do that.  There might have been a time when you and I would’ve been moved by ‘oughtness.’  Perhaps in the Leave It to Beaver or Father Knows Best era of the 50’s.  But that just doesn’t work today.”  We need something with a little more force, and in fact that’s what the original Greek word meant.  The Greek word is opheilomen, and it referred to a legal obligation.  Paul doesn’t just say we “ought” to bear with one another, but rather that we’re obligated to.  And he doesn’t just count on us listening to him, but he points us to Jesus.  He does what every pastor should do: point people to Christ.  That’s what makes Christianity different.  Other faiths may say they believe in God, but we point people to God who became man and went to the cross – Jesus.

Listen, follow me here.  Belief in God is good.  That’s a starting point.  But how many gods of the major world religions came to mankind in the form of a person?  None, except Christianity.  Allah didn’t come to serve his people.  Buddha was never a god to begin with.  He was just a regular guy (5^th BC) that started a religious movement that ultimately became known as Buddhism.  Which of the many gods of Hinduism came to serve?  None.  Only Jesus…

Mark 10:45 says, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

2 Corinthians 8:9 says, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.”

And who can forget Philippians 2:5-8, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.  And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.”

Paul’s point is simple.  The reality of the gospel is more than sufficient to have each of us looking out for the best interests of others and thereby maintain unity in the body of Christ.  Remember, Christian unity does not mean the elimination of diversity in the body.  As the late Ravi Zacharias always used to say, “Unity need not be uniformity.”  There is latitude for differences of opinion in the body of Christ as long as the gospel is not overthrown in the process.  God seeks unity amidst diversity, which shouldn’t be a surprise given that He’s one in essence and three in person.  So, as we live in harmony we reflect Him and the unity among diversity that characterizes His very existence, and we bring glory to God.

Our whole lives are to be about the business of glorifying our God.  We accomplish this at Mountain Hill as we love each other without badgering one another with our beliefs on nonessential matters – all the while standing firm upon the bedrock of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Let me conclude with this illustration from A.W. Tozer in his book The Pursuit of God.  He writes, “Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other?  They’re of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow.  So, one hundred worshipers meeting together, each one looking away from himself/herself to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be, were they to become “unity” conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.”

As we see division along party lines grow and riots tear our cities and nation apart, may our church not fall victim to the same.