Bob
Owen on Fellowship
We
Differ, Can We Fellowship
Bob
Owen
Concord,
NC (February 19, 1995) PM Sermon, and Q&A Period
In our society, in just recent years, we have seen a terrible incidence of child abuse. It has come in a variety of ways. But fewer things could be more tragic to observe or hear about than a baby being born and abandoned...found in a trash can, or just left on the side of the road. The Bible pictures that when you or I or any other person obeys the gospel, that he is born again. Now the product of a birth is a baby. And the scriptures use that very term in picturing our spiritual condition as babes in Christ.
What do you think our possibilities of success would have been if God had designed it where, when you obey the gospel, when you are baptized for remission of sins, then you're just let go? And Philip could say to the Eunuch, "Well, go on and who cares?" Or, "It's up to you." Or, "Here's a Bible, go to it." In His great wisdom, God provided, not only his divinely inspired word as our ultimate guide (and please understand that I said that - the word of God is the standard). But in his wisdom, God not only gave us his inspired word but God glues us together in a spiritual group called a family, called a church, called a congregation. And we're brought together in that spiritual family, not so that we'll do the work of the Lord (which is going to church 3 times a week), but that we come together for the purpose of growth, encouragement, mutual edification and help.
So that those who are new in the faith, young in the gospel, babes in Christ, can have the shelter and arm of experienced brothers and sisters in the Lord who care for the Lord and who care for them. And that they too may grow in the Bible term, "unto salvation." And we hear expressions like Paul's statement in Eph. 4: "That you be no longer children, tossed to and fro, and driven about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of the Devil, but speaking truth in love, may grow up in Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom all the body, fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplies..." See our roles? See our reason to be together in a local family?
But that local family includes those who are immature, or untaught, as well as they who are matured and experienced, and well founded. A local congregation is a spiritual family. Now sometimes, behavior of an individual in that local family can become destructive to the group. And God says you should not tolerate a condition where that person's presence becomes harmful to the others in the group. But participation together in a local family does not really imply that everybody in that group agrees with everybody else. And neither does it imply that everybody in that group endorses or condones everything that everybody else does. I want us to continue our line of thinking that we've introduced today in talking about "Fellowshipping in the Local Congregation."
For my part, I had a wonderful day today and you've been a major cause in that. You've been very kind and attentive in the attempts that I've been making in teaching and from the responses and the attendance tonight. It would appear to me that you have a sincere interest in the things that we're trying to talk about. Let me hurriedly say, in no way do I claim to understand all there is about scripture. And in no way do I claim to have all of the answers for every question that can be posed with regard to fellowshipping among brethren. And most of all, I'm not going to presume that I can answer all the "what if's..." that somebody could dream up.
I want to make a statement now and hopefully we'll remember to say it strongly at the close. Local congregational fellowship is just that. It is local congregational fellowship. You people here at Concord are a family of believers. If a Christian from somewhere else comes in here and wishes to be identified with you, you are the ones who are going to pass a judgment on whether that person is accepted within this group or not. I can't sit in Tampa, FL and make that decision for you. And let me hurriedly add to it, you don't have to worry whether I'm going to try to do that. The acceptance of a person in the group congregation is going to be a judgment that this local church makes, hopefully framed on the principles that God lays down, and on your judgment as to whether that person is tolerable within this church or not. Or whether that person's behavior and practice would be a detriment to the group. And those conditions could vary between congregations. One congregation that could tolerate a situation might not be the same as another that could not tolerate the same condition. And I'm not suggesting that God teaches different things. He doesn't. But all the circumstances surrounding, and all the abilities and development of a local church will come to play in that decision of acceptance or rejection of an individual in the group. And each local congregation makes that decision. The principles that we're talking about tonight are from God's word. The application is going to be incumbent upon the group here. Obviously, elders are going to give a leadership in that. And you're going to look to them for their guidance. And what you do on a local level is really your own congregational action.
Now with all that as a background, we talked this morning for a few minutes about the question of withdrawing a fellowship or refusing fellowship to some. And we indicated that there are some specific teachings in scripture that demand the withdrawing or breaking of a local fellowshipping. In each of those cases: 1 Cor. 5; Rom. 16; 2 Thess. 3, the party involved was doing something or practicing something that became destructive to the local congregation. It is not simply that that person does something that we think is wrong but what that person is doing constitutes a condition that endangers others, that harms the well being of the group. That can come either through shaming the church in the eyes of the world and undermining any kind of standard of morality. It can come by causing division and rifts within the group and leading people into error by that. Or it can come just by a person's presence and action becoming disruptive. He can just be like the factious person in Titus or the person in 2 Thes. 3 who was a parasite, wouldn't work, wanted the church to support him, and was a busybody, which would be destructive to the well-being of the congregation. But from those things, we tried to make the observation that that does not mean that if anybody is in the group and you don't agree with them, or I don't agree with them, or better yet, we don't agree with them, that we should tell that person, "Now either you've got to change your view or we're going to withdraw fellowship from you." Just differing on a belief or a practice does not necessarily demand the breaking of fellowshipping. And for that, I direct your attention to 2 particular discussions in scripture.
I think the first of these is a very familiar one. First Corinthians chapters 8 and 10. These passages deal with the eating of meats that had been offered to idols. I believe this is such a familiar case to us that we can simply make the allusion to it. But if you recall, in Corinth, the pagans offered animal sacrifices. And apparently when the animal sacrifice was offered as a burned offering, all of the meat was not consumed. And apparently some of that meat was taken and it was sold in the "shambles," one translation says. In the "market place," another says. It is sold at the discount house. Now most Christians were poor and many of them, no doubt, had bought and used the meats that could be bought in that condition. But after obeying the gospel, some of them began to reason, "Wait a minute. That meat was offered to an idol. If I eat the meat, am I not worshipping the idol?" Paul answers the question, and says, "There is no idol god out there and saying 'hocus pocus' words over that meat by a pagan priest didn't really corrupt the meat. Nothing's wrong with the meat." But, if you think there is something wrong with the meat, and you eat it, then you're sinning. And he added another codicil. He said, "Now if you know there's nothing wrong with the meat but you know your brother thinks there's something wrong with the meat, don't you do anything that would push him or pressure him or lead him to violate his conscience. Not because of your conscience, but because of his. And if you do so, you've sinned against your brother and thereby have sinned against the Lord." Now was there anything wrong with the meat? No. But if a person thought it could be wrong, it would be wrong for him to eat.
Open your Bibles with me tonight to Romans the 14th chapter. Where Paul has a similar discussion and where I believe the principles are similar or identical. We're not quite as acquainted usually with the 14th chapter of Romans as we are with 1 Cor. 8 and 10 because every congregation studies 1 Cor. Not all of us have spent that much time in the book of Romans. But I want you to look first at two verses. Look at the first verse in chapter 14 and then look at the first verse in chapter 15. I'm going to read them. 14: "But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decisions of scruples." Chapter 15, verse 1: "Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please our own selves." Paul is still on the same topic when he gets to chapter 15 that he introduces in chapter 14. All of chapter 14 and the first paragraph in chapter 15 deal with a problem between some brethren, some of whom are called "weak brethren." When I think of a weak brother, I usually think of somebody who doesn't come to services regularly, or who is out here and temptations of the world capture him easily. The boys come along and say, "Let's go to the bar," and he goes with them because he's weak in the faith. That's not the kind of weakness that is being discussed in Romans 14. Read the first part of chapter 14 with me: "But him that is weak in faith, receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples. One man hath faith to eat all things, but he that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not. And let not him that eateth not judge or condemn him that eateth. For God hath received him. Who art thou that judges the servant of another. To his own Lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand, for the Lord hath power to make him stand." And then he turns to another illustration, of the observing of days. What is the weakness in Romans 14? He said, "One man hath faith to eat all things. But him that is weak eats only vegetables." The weakness here was a weakness in understanding, it was not a weakness in power to stand. That fellow who thought it was a sin to eat meat may have been in our proverbial expression as strong as horse radish. He may have been able to withstand anybody and all of you his case to the nth degree. But his knowledge was limited. His understanding was such that he believed it to be a sin if you ate any kind of meat. Now these are not meats sacrificed to idols. Probably this is a hangover of the old Jewish law, maybe it was tied to the law that you couldn't eat any kind of blood, and he may have reasoned that if you eat the meat, you're eating the blood, or it may have been the kinds of meats that were let down in that sheet that Peter saw, some clean, some unclean. Whatever the case, here were some Christians who had reached the conclusion that it would be wrong for them to eat these meats. Now Paul is going to tell them that there is nothing wrong with the meat. But if you think it to be wrong, it would be wrong for you to eat it. In continuing that same discussion, and I'm not reading all of it, drop down in chapter 14 to verse 19ff: "So then, let us follow after things which make for peace and things whereby we may edify one another. Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean. Howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offense." If a man eats it, thinking that he is doing wrong, he's doing wrong. Vs. 21: "It is good not to eat flesh nor drink wine nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth. The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth." Now, vs. 23 you've heard many times, "But he that doubteth is damned if he eat, or condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Now, frequently the word faith is used to mean the revealed word of God. In this passage, faith is being used to describe your own personal conviction. Walvord (?) used the expression, "conscience." If a person does something in violation of his own conscience, it's sin to him. Even though the action in itself might be innocent, it becomes wrong if he thinks it to be wrong. Now, what's the condition back here in Rome when Paul writes this? We have some brethren who believe it to be sinful to eat any kind of meat. We have some other brethren who believe that it is acceptable to eat meats. Now Paul tells us and told them that there's really nothing wrong with the meat. But the Lord presumed that his word was not going to change everybody's view. And that there would be some of them that even though he had told them the meat is innocent would still have doubts about it, so he said, "Follow your conscience. Do not do what you think to be wrong."
Now with that same context, start again with verse 6. Or with verse 5, pardon me. "One man esteemeth one day above another. Another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord. And he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, For he giveth God thanks. And he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." What was the situation? Here was some who believed that some days were special. Maybe the old Jewish days of the feast days or the new moons or the sabbaths. Probably, those are the cases. And Paul said, "If you consider those days as holy days and if you would be in violation of your conscience to do something on those days, then you observe those days. But," he said, "in reality the days are not holy now, the system has changed, those are not holy or special days. But every person was to keep his own conscience. And in several ways, Paul said, "Each person is responsible to live as he sees the Lord's will."
Now, do the principles of Romans 14 have any bearing on our practices today? I certainly believe they do. What principles can we glean from this book? And brethren, I want to tell you, there are some major discussions going on and major issues at hand among some brethren across the nation, centering on this passage. And if I understand it, I'm going to deal right now with the little end of the tap root. The real question. Some people have come along and have said, "Okay now, Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8 and 10 both deal with things that are innocent within themselves. But where a person thinks something to be wrong, where in reality it's not wrong." And so, they have made this statement, "Romans 14 deals only with matters that are matters of indifference." That becomes a watchword. And they turn it around and they say, "You can't put under Romans 14 anything that's a matter of faith." Now that sounds good on the surface. And yes, I recognize that the cases here were matters that were indifferent. Somebody says, "Where is the example that the Bible takes a matter of faith and tells you you can do it either way?" That's self-defeating. You couldn't find that. Because if it is a violation of law and you find it, God's going to tell you here's the right way. But if only matters that are matters of indifference can be handled among brethren in the church of the Lord today, I want you to tell me what issues could be dealt with among brethren? We're going to have a list of issues in a minute. A list of issues where brethren have differed. A list of issues that many of us would say, "Well, most of those, maybe all of them, are matters of indifference." But for every one of the issues that I'm going to show you there are some brethren who say, "That's a matter of what God teaches." It's a matter of faith. And I believe it's parallel to the situation we've got here in Romans 14. Look at it. I know that you and I can look at it and say, "Well, the meats really didn't matter." But that fellow in Rome who thought it was a sin to eat meats was convinced that that's what God teaches. And the passage says When he refused to eat, it was unto the Lord that he wouldn't eat. It was because of his conviction that this is what the Lord teaches that he didn't eat the meats. The fellow in Corinth who thought it a sin to eat the meats sacrificed to idols was convinced that was a law of God. So in Rome and in Corinth you had brethren who differed in what they believed. You have brethren who differed in their practice. One believed it was a sin to eat meats that had been sacrificed to an idol, so he wouldn't eat them. Another believed that those meats were acceptable and he did eat them. Now the fellow who thought it could be a sin to eat those meats had to look at the other fellow and think he was sinning. Had to. In Rome, the fellow who thought it was a sin to eat any kind of meat would have to think you sinned if you ate a piece of meat. And yet Paul taught them that they should accept each other. And verse one says, "Him that is weak in faith (that's the fellow who is not fully taught about these meats) receive ye, yet not for decisions of scruples." I don't use those expressions very often, except teaching on Romans 14. What do you mean by "decisions of scruples?" Paul is saying, accept him into your fellowship but you're not accepting him for the purpose of putting him on the front row and grilling him and making sure that he agrees with you on everything that comes along. You're not conducting kangaroo court. Are there some things where brethren today might differ in their beliefs and might differ in their practices and yet could continue to work and worship together in a local congregation? I believe there are.
I want you to look at a list of things. And this is not a complete list. But it's a suggestive list. There are brethren in our society today who have different convictions on these issues. Not everybody differs over all of them and some of us may not differ over any of them. Does a woman have to wear an artificial covering when she comes into an assembly? Some of the finest Christians that I know are convinced that 1 Cor. 11 binds the wearing of an artificial covering on the woman for all times. Some of the people that I have the greatest respect for as Bible students and certainly the greatest respect for as dedicated servants of God hold that view. I differ with it. Now I would have no problems saying, "Well, you know, whether a woman puts that covering on doesn't is a matter of indifference." I can call it a matter of indifference. Would he? Of course not. He believes that's bound by the law of God. We differ. On what I believe to be a matter of indifference, but what he believes to be a matter of faith. And that's exactly what the situation was in Rome and Corinth. One believed it to be a matter of faith; one believed it to be a matter of indifference. Carnal warfare. Can a Christian go in service? If he goes in service, must he be non-combatant? Can he be in service and pull the trigger? Must he be a conscientious objector? You want me to tell the answer to that? You know which is right on those views? My View. Isn't that the way you feel about your view? Of course it is. If it weren't, you'd swap over to whichever one you did think was right. But honest, sincere, devout Christians today differ over that issue. "Oh," somebody says, "Well, that's a matter of indifference." Not to me. It's a matter of my faith in God. And my faith in what God teaches. And somebody says, "Well, we're not dealing with things that will send your soul to hell." Wait a minute! For the conscientious objector, you're talking about the equivalent of murder. That gets as moral as anything I know. Is it alright to have a wedding in the church building? I know good brethren who say that it's wrong to do it. Not just a matter of judgment. They say it's wrong. Or to have a funeral in the church building. I don't hear this one much any more, but it use to, rather regularly. Tommy, are you old enough for this? Some people used to say Christians ought not have a television in their home. I rarely go in a home that doesn't have several of them. If you've got a TV, what can you watch? PG movies? What about R-rated? What about the soaps? You know and I know that Christians differ on some of those things. It's been a long time since I've heard this one. Brother, when I was a kid growing up, you know that was right after the earth cooled, of course, but when I was a kid growing up, there were a lot of Christians who believed that it was wrong for the boys and girls to get out and play ball on Sunday afternoon. That's the Lord's day and they carried over the old ideas of the Jewish Sabbath and thought you were supposed to sit home and do nothing on that day, a day of rest. I don't hear that one much any more. But it was a matter of conscience. Others: Christmas tree. Can a Christian have a Christmas tree? I know some brethren who say that if you have a Christmas tree, you're worshipping those pagan gods where that practice came from. And other Christians who say, I'm not worshipping that tree. Can you get a gift? Can you sing Christmas carols? What about practicing Halloween? Can you dress little kids up as spooks and send them out in the night? Christians differ on these. "Oh," somebody says, "Those are matters of indifference." They're indifference to half the group. They're matters of conscience to the other half. And if we are going to say that Romans 14 can only be applied in matters of indifference who's going to make the list? Do you want to let me make the list for everybody? Or is your conscience going to have to come to play when you're deciding what's right and wrong for you. What about hymns? They are accompanied by an instrument. Can you listen to them on the radio? Can you practice at home? See the difference. See the kinds of problems that exist among our faithful brethren? Conscientious brethren. Can a Christian participate in government? (Did that quit? Surely not.) Can a Christian participate in government? I know some conscientious Christians who feel that it's wrong for Christians to have any participation in the government that he's not obligated to do, like paying taxes. So they don't vote. Christian couldn't be a policeman or something like that. What about the women's roles today? You know there are several differences of views on that. Now question. Are there issues among us where Christians differ in their beliefs and in their practices and yet continue in their fellowshipping together. I believe there are. But they are the kinds of things that do not shame the church in the eyes of the world. I mean if you've got a Christmas tree in your living room, you probably are not going to upset the neighborhood. Like the guy in 1 Cor. 5 who was living with his father's wife brought shame because he was doing something that everybody knew was sin. If a Christian is in the military, although I may differ with him, in my belief as to what a Christian ought to do, his being in the military is not going to shame the church and cause everybody to be upset. Now, on any of those issues, any one of us could become contentious and factious and cause a division in the church. But the problem is our attitude and our behavior and not just that particular issue.
Now, would it be fair to say, "Alright, then it doesn't matter what brethren believe and practice, just go your way?" Wait a minute. Christians in carnal warfare. The matter of head coverings or Christmas trees or Halloween, those kinds of things that we've been talking about, brethren have differed on and continue to differ on and yet we can continue to fellowship. Why? When there are issues like instrumental music and church donations and missionary societies. Why have those led to division?
Remember our point earlier? On the distinction between private practiced things, or privately practiced things, and group practices. We can't bring the piano into the assembly and say that our practice is individual, that some of us are using it and some of us are not using. It commits the whole group. But one Christian might sit at home and pick out a tune on the piano, learning a religious song and another Christian might say, "I couldn't do that conscientiously." There is a difference in what we do as the group and what we do privately. Could you worship and continue to worship with somebody who does not believe it wrong to use an instrument? Now, think a minute. What if you had a brother who said, "You know, I don't really think there's anything wrong with using the instrument, but I don't want us to use it because a lot of you think there is something wrong with it." What if he said, "I personally do not think it is a sin to use the instrument but I like to worship with you and I'm not going to try to get people to use the instrument. I'm perfectly happy for us not to use the instrument." I want to tell you brethren, you're probably worshipping with people like that all the time. Now suppose that person comes along and starts agitating to bring the instrument in and starts a kind of underground to try to get people to go along with the instrument? Now, you've got a different problem. We've had a division in the last generation or two over what you can do with money that's contributed in the Lord's work. I personally believe it is wrong to take money out of the collection and use it for social activities or for other kinds of things like that that I don't believe are authorized in scripture. I think that's wrong. And I couldn't participate with a congregation that used it's money that way. But what if somebody came and said, "I personally don't think it would be wrong to take money out of the treasury and send to an orphan home, but I want to worship with you brethren. And I'm not trying to get you to do that. I know you don't agree with it. And that's fine. But I like you, I want to worship with you, I want to study here and work and worship here and I'm perfectly content for us not to do that out of the treasury." I want to tell you, brethren, I don't have any trouble continuing to worship with that person. My participation in a local congregation does not mean that I approve everything that everybody in the congregation believes. Rome and Corinth didn't have approval of everybody. And our participation together in a local congregation is not the same thing as saying we endorse everything that everybody here believes and practices. It really, brethren, is not even a vote that says we believe all of us are going to heaven. You may have some member in the congregation who hasn't grown, who after 30 or 40 years is still a babe in Christ and would fall into that condemnation of Heb. 5, that "when by reason of time you ought to be teachers of others you have need that somebody come and teach you." This persons never grown. You might say, "I wouldn't want to be in his shoes in Judgment." You're not really approving the way he has handled himself with the Lord. Does that mean you've got to withdraw fellowship from him. Of course not. As long as his behavior is not disruptive, destructive to the group, he not only can continue, we ought to encourage him to continue. Because hopefully he is going to wake up and hopefully by our influence and teaching, we can cause him to wake up.
Fellowship in a local congregation does not mean that we agree an every single point of doctrine. But we have to be careful that we not do thing that compromise the other's conscience. We have to be careful that we not do things that cause division in the church and disruption. But short of that, I think we ought to have a disposition that says we want as many people to work and worship together with us as we can get so that we can all study and grow and learn and together we can be pleasing to God. (Amen from audience)
Somebody coined a line not long ago. Well I've heard all my life that the bitterest kind of war is a civil war, that you never find wars that are meaner than when brother gets against brother, and somebody seized on that same principle and said, "The Christian war is the only one where the army shoots its enemies, or shoots its prisoners" (pardon me). That's a terrible saying, and our attitude ought to be, out of love and concern for one another to seek ways that we can continue together rather than (tape ends)......end of side one.
Side two begins -
....compromising truth. That's not the case. I'm not going to compromise my conscience and I'm not going to try to do things that cause you to compromise your conscience. But as long as we can work and worship together and my practice does not shame the church or compromise you in your behavior or cause a division in the group, I want you to work and worship with me. And I want the same thing in reverse. And may God bless us to understand the role of a local church which is that of that family relationship to help us grow. And may God bless us to have the wisdom to see when we can be tolerant and when the lines of division must be drawn. Is it always easy? Of course not. Is there one formula that we say, "When somebody does this action, take this action?" No sir. Each local church has to pass its own judgment on whether that person's behavior is harmful in that group or not. And what might be tolerated in this congregation might not be tolerated in another. And that's critical of neither one, but just recognizing the nature of the local church. May God bless us with wisdom and with grace and love to the doing of his will.
After our services are over tonight, we're inviting all who would like to stay and we'll field some questions. And let me correct one thing quickly. Tommy said we would have questions and answers. We may have only questions. But to the limit of ability, we will have attempts at answers. May God bless us in our decisions and actions. If you're not a Christian and want to become one tonight, we urge you to respond to the simple gospel of Jesus Christ, believing in him to be the Son of God, repenting of sins, to be baptized for remission of sins. And if you're a Christian, out of duty and want the prayers of this group in your behalf, we would urge you to come while we stand together and sing.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
I appreciate your interest and (here he comes), I appreciate your interest and the kind attention that was given. Let me hurriedly say two things. Number one: I do not claim to know all the answers to all of the problems. I'll give you whatever information or data that I have from scripture and I certainly am not in position to answer all of the what-if's. Because as we said in the last part of the lesson, local fellowshipping is ultimately a local situation, and a local decision. And what might be acceptable in one group might not be acceptable in another group. And that's not because the Bible teaches something different but because the congregations are different. So, with that in mind, do you have some questions about the things that we've talked about today?
Q: Let me start by just what you've said. Let me ask, sometimes, it seems to me, something has bothered me that when you say that, that churches might differ in this, yet there seems to be people are trying to judge on churches. Yet you've said that there's the church universal, then there is my local congregation. Is that all God gave me and what business does one church have to do with the judgment of others?
A: Certainly God has organized us on the basis of local congregations, and we've preached for years (I'm not sure we've practiced it for years) but we've preached for years that every congregation is independent. When a major issue comes up among brethren, it is not uncommon for some people to want to not only teach and preach where they are, but maybe to make sure that everybody in the world does what their belief is. And there's a mixed bag on this. I go all over the country preaching. I preach the same thing everywhere I go. Same doctrines, same questions answered, that kind of thing. Am I trying to teach the same things every...? Yes, I am. Could I write that in a paper? Sure, I could. Could brethren read it all over the place. Sure they could. Part of it might come from an attitude. If my attitude is such that "Alright, I'm gonna tell you and everybody's got to shape up to my view or that person is not right with the Lord," I want to be careful about my own attitude on that. And frankly, brethren, there are some issues that are being discussed among the brethren today that have led to the extension of this discussion on fellowship tonight. And there are some brethren who almost want to do a litmus test. They pick a particular doctrine and if a preacher doesn't preach it the same thing that they believe on that particular doctrine, or if a congregation doesn't practice what they think it ought to be practicing on that, then they deem that preacher as unfaithful and that congregation as unfaithful. And that's wrong. That's detrimental. And some have taken some of the issues that I talked about tonight and have tried to parallel some of those things to the institutional problem. Well, frankly, you've got to keep in mind a difference between practices that are individual by nature and practices that are congregational by nature. The use of the instrument, the missionary society, the institutional question, those are questions that deal with the group practice. But a lot of other issues are individually practiced. I'm not sure that I'm saying all that Tommy wants me to say on that particular issue but I seriously have fears, not just questions, but I have fears of an attitude among our brethren today (and I don't want to be guilty of the same problem). I don't want to be guilty of judging the brotherhood when I criticize some who I think are trying to run the brotherhood. I don't want to be guilty of trying to run the brotherhood when I tell them they ought not to be trying to run the brotherhood. But If I'm able to read the signs of the time, and you know, feel the winds blowing, it appears to me that there are some who are really not just dealing with their opportunities in their places, but they've got an attitude that they've got the charge to speak to the whole brotherhood and to direct the whole brotherhood. If God wanted us organized as a brotherhood rather than local congregations God knew how to do it. He did it with the Jews 1500 years before. What other questions? Yessir.
Q: Uh, I don't want to go over as immature as I ask the question, but I believe (Bob: what til you hear my answer. Laughter) but I believe the church of Christ started around 250 years ago, is that somewhere... in line? Anyway, whenever it started somebody decided that they didn't like the way the other churches were doing it. Said, I want to get back to the Bible and do exactly what the Bible says. But the decision was made some time ago, and a doctrine was established that we agree with the New Testament and we bought it. And to the best of our ability we study the word and we're not Greek scholars, we're not theologians, we do our best to adhere to the first century church. Now, when we go out and, I think a lot of us face this trying to share this gospel to other people, a lot of times they are people who go to other churches and in the 8th chapter of Corinthians, some religions, I grew up Catholic, so, I know there are doctrinal or there biblical differences that I can point out with these people. (Bob: Un-huh.) But in cases of people that go to the Christian Fellowship church down the road or the..some Baptist churches, there really are doctrines that are fairly close to ours and oftentimes you get down to issues with these people as to how we're gonna reach them and in trying to help those people to grow, how do we address those kinds beyond just referring them to scripture and teaching them the Bible?
A: Well, I don't answer any scriptural issue other than referring people to the Bible, and dealing with scripture. And I'm not just exactly sure where we're coming from on that. When you alluded to the age of the church, or churches, and 250 years, obviously, you're referring to what we commonly call the Restoration Movement. We all know that God established the church when Day of Pentecost and the gospel began to be preached in that. And, as far as we know, there have been periods of time when people were not practicing what we understand to be NT Christianity. There may have been and that we didn't know about. But about 200 years ago or so in our country, a number of people began to be disenchanted with common denominationalism and simply said, "Well, let's go back and do what we find in the Bible." And that led to people doing, I think, what scripture teaches. But out of that should not come, and out of that has not come, a headquarters that says "Now that we have found truth, we, the church of Christ, have established our stamp of approval and we tell churches of Christ, here's what you must believe if you want to be church of Christ churches." We haven't and we should not develop a denominational attitude and spirit that says, "We have to conform to the direction of some group of brethren somewhere." Our obligation is to, "Here's what the scripture says." Now, as we have opportunity, whether it be with a Catholic neighbor, a Baptist friend, or some other group of brethren, with whom we have some differences, as we have opportunity we ought to say let's talk about this from scripture. For I'd so the same thing with all of those and there's not any particular vehicle other than teaching somebody the truth. And let me hurriedly say Christianity is an individual religion and conversion is going to be an individual matter. You don't convert churches, you convert individuals and teach them, "Here's what the word of God says." Other questions?
Q: I read an article recently by a man who believes that any sort of prayer toward Christ himself was sinful and I know in...predominately most people ask and pray, always pray in Christ's name, but rarely do I hear people pray directly to Christ. My understanding of the scripture is that Christ... is that we get to the Father through the Son. I want you to comment on that and think about the passage where it says that all authority has been given to Christ in heaven and on earth, and also maybe touch on Isa., I believe it is the 9th chapter where it says that Christ was..in the prophecy of Christ he would be called the Everlasting Father. Is it wrong to pray to Christ or to say Jesus, help me or should we forbid children to not talk to Jesus or speak to Jesus?
A: Alright. That really is a side issue from the matter of fellowshipping, but I'll deal with it. But in the other questions, let us try to kind of focus on this fellowshipping issue. And I'll be brief on this. There are some people who have taken the view that it would be wrong to pray to Jesus or to sing songs that are directed to Jesus. They teach you have to sing songs that are directed to God and I think that they have made a distinction that the scripture does not make. And that they have drawn some lines unnecessarily. For example, Stephen, when he was being stoned, lifted up his eyes and said, "Lord, Jesus, receive my spirit." He made an appeal to Jesus. God has vested all authority in Jesus Christ. He is the avenue by which we are redeemed. But what Jesus did was, he served as our High Priest, offered his blood as they atoning sacrifice. By virtue of his high priesthood, he makes us priests in the family of God. A priest has the privilege of approaching divinity. I, now listen carefully to this please. I'm gonna be brief, but it's got to be careful. I can pray directly to God. I do not have to pray to Jesus and have Jesus turn my prayer over to God. I can pray directly to God. The thing that enables me to pray directly to God is my high priest, Jesus Christ, who atoned for my sins and made me a priest. Now, we come back to the other issue. What role does Jesus play? "I and the Father are one," he says. "All authority has been given unto me." There really is no competition and no jealous warfare between God the Father and God the Son. And the Bible speaks of God dwelling in us. The Bible speaks of Christ dwelling in us. That's not competitive. There is an identity in purpose and role, not in role but in purpose and in function that there is really no competition. I personally do not understand that there is wrong in my appealing to the Lord himself, Jesus. Neither is there wrong in my appealing to God the Father and when somebody comes along and says, "Oh, you can't pray to one or you can't pray to the other; or you can't sing praises to Jesus," I think they are straining at something and making a distinction between something that we can't make it as believers. Tommy.
Q: Answer this as you will. But in my reading from the Restoration Movement til this day, and from my practice, in being around preachers and people who preach, there have been people who differed on many things you said and it also includes the question of the marriage question and divorce and remarriage. History of our movement, over and over, it's been there. But yet for 20 years I've known that and worked with brethren who disagreed, believed different...brother Homer Hailey, is an outstanding example who has been a friend of mine for many years. And yet, within just a short time, recently, I just have people just asking that question, asking that question, what is it, ask, it seems like it doesn't matter about all the other things, but this is the thing that now there can be no differences in understanding on this question. Or am I just perceiving that or do I see that just having the monumental question right now? How do you deal with it?
A: Well, how I deal with it may not be satisfactory to anybody else. But that of course, is what I had in mind a moment ago when I used the expression, "a litmus test." In the last several years, some brethren have focused on the divorce and remarriage issues. And have pushed it to the point that if anybody differs with them on that point, they not only say I don't agree with you, or I teach something different, but they're using this label, "You become a false teacher." The Bible uses that expression very sparingly. In 2 Pet. 2, there's a whole chapter directed to some that are called "false teacher." But listen carefully. Everybody that teaches something that I think is false does not meet the description of these people in 2 Pet. 2. Those false teachers in 2 Pet. 2 were hypocrites, who would lie, who would deceive, they were people who took advantage of others for filthy lucre's sake. Whose role was to try to be divisive and to get their own personal aggrandizement. Now, I can't take everybody that teaches something that I differ with and say, "He is a false teacher of the Bible definition of a false teacher." These false teachers were like the false prophets, the false apostles. They were not just brethren who differed. Now today, there are some people who differ over the question of divorce and remarriage. And what happened was, just in the last generation or two, divorce has become an increasing problem. Your head's in the sand if you don't know there's a lot more divorce today than there was 40 years ago. When I was a kid growing up, I didn't know, but I was in college before I knew but one person who was a Christian who'd had a divorce. Only one, when I was a college student. Today, it's rampant. And a lot of brethren are saying, "Oh, it's going to invade the churches." Well, sure it's going to give troubles to churches. But they've said, "We've got to crystallize our thinking and anybody who teaches something different is a false teacher." You mentioned brother Hailey. He's one of my dearest friends. I communicate with him frequently. And would love to sit at his feet right now and listen to him preach. I differ with him on the issue of divorce and remarriage. He knows that. And I know it and he and I discussed it at length. But Homer Hailey is not a deceitful worker, going around with personal desire to be disruptive and to make gain of the brethren. Homer Hailey is not some hypocritical blasphemer, who rails at the dignity of God. And those are the descriptions of the false teacher in 2 Pet. 2. I differ with brother Hailey on some issues on divorce and remarriage. And frankly, he could fellowship some people, some divorced people, that I couldn't fellowship. I'm an old time conservative on the divorce and remarriage issue. But a bunch of brethren have come along and they list me as a false teacher because I do not agree with them that I can't have any relationship with brother Hailey. Since we differ on the divorce question, they say, if I have fellowship with him, then I'm a false teacher on fellowship. And I've got to be marked and some are doing that publicly. I regret that but I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. I'm gonna do what my conscience says oughta be done, what I believe the Bible teaches and let the Lord take care of the rest of it. Is the divorce thing a matter of...is it an issue? Sure it is. How should it be decided? Let me tell you how it ought to be decided. Every local congregation is going to take each individual case and pass its own judgment what would be the impact in this congregation if we accept that couple. If it's going to be harmful to the group, then that group, they ought not accept them. But I can't sit in Tampa, FL and write the prescription for all the situations that might come up on divorce and remarriage for all the churches in the country. And nobody else can, by the way. Some are trying to do it, but they can't do it. Just like I can't pass the judgment for everybody who differs with me on the war question, or the covering question. I know some congregations that are made up heavily of military personnel. That congregation might not be tolerant of somebody who came in and taught that it's sinful to participate in the military. I'm not going to criticize them for their judgment as to what's good in their congregation. I may differ with their view. But they have the perfect right to make that decision. If I was in a congregation where everybody in the congregation believed that a woman was obligated to have the artificial covering on her head, I can understand why that congregation might not want me to be a teacher. I differ with them. And I can understand that they make the decision as to whether it would be in their best interest to have me as a preacher or teacher or not. And they have the perfect right to make that decision. On the marriage question, as I've indicated I'm a conservative. And there are some people who have been very critical of brother Hailey and I agree with those people who are critical of him on the Bible teaching with regard to divorce and remarriage. But I differ with them on their interpretation and application of the fellowship issue. Tommy, am I on the track?
Tommy: I want to say this. In dealing with your lesson tonight, wouldn't brother Hailey say that he is the conservative. In other words, the whole issue here isn't whether a person is obviously trying to deal with the Bible instead of what you said. In other words, he...I believe he would say he's a conservative even though I have disagreed. I disagree with him (Bob: yeah), but yet I understand that he feels like he's an honest student...I know he's an honest man (Bob: Oh, yes). I know he's a student of the word. And he only wants to do what the Bible says.
Bob: Yeah. I don't think you will find any person who has a more conservative toward the word of God than brother Hailey. I used the term conservative in the one area of the divorce question. He would accept some people's divorces that I would not. Mine was more limited than his. And mine is the older view, a more common view. But let me hurriedly say something else. Don't any of you let somebody sell you the idea that this is a new issue in the church. We've had differences over the divorce and remarriage question all the way back to Alexander Campbell. And some people have come along and have acted as though its a new problem to the church of the Lord. Brother Earl Kimbrough is a marvelous historian. He wrote a little tract a few years ago and kept it private until just a couple of years ago, that says, "How Shall We Treat Brethren With Whom We Disagree?" And it deals with how the churches have dealt with the difference on the marriage and divorce question through the years, going all the way back in our history of the Restoration Movement. I'm going to let some of you get copies of this and you might enjoy reading it. It doesn't argue that scripturally here's what we should have done. It just says the problem has been here and brethren have been dealing with it for years and here's the way they've dealt with it. It's not a new issue. It may be a greater issue at one time than another but it's certainly not a new one.
Tommy: Um, not to continue this forum, in the sense of a marriage, divorce and remarriage issue... (Owen: Good.) But in what we learned today, about things being individual versus being with the group, is that, is there some cloudiness there, or some gray areas there which brethren who ever have problems with other brethren that it can't make that distinction?
Bob: I think there is. And some have read 1 Cor. 5 and have said, "Now look, here's what the Bible says. Here's a man in adultery, you've got to withdraw from him." Look at the case. It was not just something where you and I might conclude that his marriage was not valid. It was a matter that here was a person who was openly living in an adulterous situation, incest. An open and shut case of adulterous behavior. It'd be like somebody who made no claim to be married; they're just sleeping together. Now to come along and say, "Okay, now, here's somebody who's got a marriage problem and we have concluded that their marriage is not valid therefore we have concluded that they are guilty of fornication." I can make that conclusion. Is that the same thing as the incestuous in 1 Cor. 5? I don't believe it is. And let me give you a parallel. A parallel that many of them refuse to deal with today. I'm a conscientious objector with regard to war. I could serve in the military in non-combatant, but I have a conscience problem with pulling the trigger. I watch the war movies and do some other things like that. I watched "Iwo Jima" on the tube and all that kind of thing but that personal conviction is that I've got a conscience problem to pull the trigger. I could be a medic. I hope its not a matter of cowardice. The medics, I understand, were in more danger than the other guys. I could be a medic but I couldn't pull the trigger. I'm a conscientious objector. My conscientious belief is that the person who goes in the military and pulls that trigger is killing without authority. You know what that is? That's murder. But is there a difference in my concluding that that person is killing without authority therefore guilty of murder in God's sight. Is that the same thing as the fellow who walks in the 7-11 store and shoots the clerk? They both may be technically murder, but is the impact the same in the community, or in the church, or in our relationship together? The guy who goes in and shoots the clerk, everybody knows that's wrong. The man who drops the bomb, everybody doesn't look at that and say, "That's wrong." The fellow who just goes off and sleeps with a woman who is not his wife, everybody knows that's adultery. But the person in a questionable marriage, everybody doesn't see that as an adulterous situation. Now we are back to a local church has to look at each situation and say, "What is this condition and what would be the impact in our group?" I think I'm answering your question.
Q: I'm condemned to go to hell then. I was in the war. (Bob: I knew somebody was going to do that to me.) Laughter. (Bob: I know.) I apologize for being rash, but I mean, but that....(Bob: Well, then don't be rash! Don't be rash. I'm not going to be rash with you.) Alright. It upset me a little bit. (Bob: Don't let it upset you. Because see what I've done? I've given you the full liberty to exercise your conscience and to do what you believe the Lord authorizes you to do and I think you ought to do the same with me.) I really didn't have a choice, actually. It was either do it or be put up on charges, you know, things like that. (Bob: Fine. Alright. Everybody makes his own decisions. I've only got one brother in the flesh. He served in the military. He's a gospel preacher. He and I differ on this particular point. How do I know...There's not anybody I love more or respect more than my own physical brother. He's a brother in the Lord. But we differ on that point of doctrine. Now, that's the very point in fellowshipping not being a matter that everybody has to see every single point alike and do every thing exactly alike. I'm delighted that God left us with some individual conscience so that I'm not having to judge you in your conscience and in what you did. And you ought not be judging me in mine. You see where I'm coming from on that? So, that's a cardinal illustration of the fact that brethren could be close friends and work together and worship together and differ on something and practice something different and still have total regard and respect for each other.)
Tommy: I believe, is it not, that when you make that judgment on this or the other things that we've talked about, is it because all parties are looking at the scriptures and they have come to a conscientious belief from the scriptures (Bob: Right) that what they're doing and teaching is right. You have to respect that. Is that...? (Bob: That's right.) It isn't an opinion about this, he believes the scriptures teach that. (Bob: Absolutely. And just like some of the finest Bible students that I know believe the covering is bound, some of the finest Bible students I know, believe that military function is legitimate for the Christian. But some of the finest Bible students I know are on the other side and I'm not counting myself that guy. But here's my point. Brethren do have some areas where they differ. And are we going to say, "Okay now, if we differ we either must all come to the same conclusion or we've got to separate?" No. But let's keep respect for each other. And respect for each other's conscience. Question over here.
Q: What bothers me is, I don't think anyone has the knowledge and ability to judge everybody in everything, individual or congregational. (Amen.) There are certain things the Bible is specific on and I think those things can be judged and should be judged by elders or congregations or whatever...or an individual if the circumstances were such. The other things that are not specific has to be just kept to a...uh, I can't believe that a just and forgiving God that the Bible teaches us about could condemn a person because of that particular thing. So I think sometimes we get carried away on something that the Bible is not specific on and things that are really spelled out in the Bible, and we could be firm on those. The others I just can't see that God will condemn me if I believed that a woman should be covered or should not be covered. I mean, those things, we're not perfect, just like the old bumper sticker said, "Christians are not perfect, they're just forgiven." And I really believe that sometimes we get carried away with these things that the Bible is not clear on. He's not going to condemn me if there's something that he does not really spell out in his word. I don't believe he's going to condemn you one way or the other whatever your belief is.
Bob: Well, I appreciate your statement there and I heartily concur that there are some things that are taught in the scripture that are more explicitly covered and that we agree on more universally than some other issues. But I don't think we could satisfactorily answer that list by saying, "Well the Bible is not clear on these topics. I will give you some folks with regard to the covering who will tell you that the Bible is just as clear in its binding of the covering as it is with the Lord's supper or baptism for remission of sins. That's their view. So, the answer is not just is the Bible clear, the answer is, "Does the practice compromise each other." Or, does it shame and do the things we talked about?
Q: While we are getting into that, how many things that I asked a question about is that line going to vary on who's a brother or who's not with different people. If I sat down in a group of people and they were different denominations, I could explain my understanding and probably every one of them would call me a brother, but I could probably look back at them and not feel the same. So, where is the line going to fall? And I know that it may fall at different places for different people. Just to get your comments on that. Then, where is the important issue? I mean, I see baptism as something that gonna drive the nail one way or the other where another person, it's not. So, what's important and what's not important as you face the views where your conviction might not should be so convicting as you would like it to be.
Bob: Alright. We're not just talking about people who might be convicted on something and we're not throwing the door open to say that everybody who is just honest and sincere is welcome in our fellowshipping. Our fellowshipping is premised on the presumption that the person has established a fellowship with God. Which fellowship is established by his obeying the gospel. But let me show you the fallacy in some of that. What if a person was baptized but he wasn't sincere? I may accept him, and I would, when God may say, "He never did become my child." We have to form our judgment on what we can see and hear and reasonably conclude on. When somebody comes and says, "I was sprinkled and I believe I'm a Christian," that doesn't mean that I've got to accept him as a Christian because he thinks he's a Christian. For me to accept him would compromise my role, my position, for what it takes for a person to become a child of God. So he's not even a brother. Alright. Another question back here.
Q: Ah, yes. If there's a personal issue that I (a cough covers up part of the question) can make it an indifferent matter, how far should I go in not exercising that action so that I don't offend a brother?
A: If I'm understanding your question, if there is an issue that you consider to be legitimate or allowable before God, how far should you go in light of another person's conviction that it would be offensive. I think there is a simple answer, and I'm not trying to be simplistic. And that is, you must not do those things that would lead him to violate his conscience. Now you're going to have to form some judgment in there. Does that mean that he thinks it's wrong to have a television set. If you've got one in your house, does that mean that you've caused him to put one in his house? Probably not. But you invite him over to your house and you're going to leave the television playing. I hope you wouldn't. You don't do the things that put him in a (end of side 2)
Tape transcribed by Tom Roberts