CAN MEN DIFFER AND BE RIGHT?

In Romans 14 Paul presents us with a situation which seems to have considerable bearing on our Christian relationships today. The general theme is the treatment by one brother of another, the treatment love would demand. All of us acknowledge our mutual obligation to love in mind and in deed; but, beyond this, we are unsure of a proper application of this passage. It is obvious that Paul is more concerned with the principle of mutual care than he is with the question of eating meat. It is also obvious that such differences are not to divide brothers.

It is highly significant (and somewhat contradictory to our traditions) that Paul presents here a case of two views that are both divergent and opposite. We have always said, “Where two disagree one is bound to be wrong.” It is true that one party here is described as “the weaker” and it is made clear that he has misunderstood the will of God. But the striking thing is that, though wrong in conviction, he is “right with God.” Two men whose views are directly opposite, both acceptable to God!

However, when an attempt is made to apply this situation to our present difficulties, some object, “But that was a matter of opinion.” Well, Paul does identify it so in the first verse, though it is not clearly identified as a matter of opinion in all translations. The King James Version renders it “doubtful disputations.” Others use the word scruples. The thing which we overlook is that it was a matter of opinion to Paul, and to the stronger brother, but it was not recognized as a matter of opinion by the vegetarian. The weaker brother obviously believed that it was wrong for him to eat meat, which means that this was the will of God as he saw it. If we think we understand what the will of God is, then we do not regard it as a matter of opinion, do we? What is the difference between the man who believes the use of classes is wrong and a matter of faith (but who cannot produce a single passage of New Testament scripture clearly forbidding it or ruling it out) and the man who believes that immersion must be in running water and regards that as a matter of faith (though lacking scriptural support). An idea is only a matter of opinion to him who sees it as such, and the criteria for qualifying ideas as opinions vary from person to person and from party to party, so that what constitutes opinion is itself a matter of opinion upon which we differ.

Probably we shall never all agree on what is opinion and what is faith. I have no confidence that we can gain unity based on agreement in that any more than in anything else. What we must do if we are to have the unity our Lord prayed for is to grant others the right to decide for themselves what their obligations and restrictions may be. We are too interested in what others are doing or not doing; we are interested in qualifying or disqualifying the worship and service of others. One thing we must learn from Romans 14 is that we have no business doing this. Who are you to evaluate your brother’s service? Who are you to criticize your fellow servants because their consciences lead them in a slightly different direction from yours? Paul says “It is before his own Master that he stands or falls, and He is able to make him stand.” There are surprises in store for the “loyal” brethren, all two dozen or so parties of them. --- S. Taggart.

SPEAKING OF EVOLUTION

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if man’s spiritual progress during the past three thousand years could have kept pace with his progress in the physical sciences? What if our standard of living had gone up spiritually as fast as it has materially even within the past fifty years? That would be something in which we could take some pleasure, wouldn’t it? But, regrettably, that is not the case. Bernard Shaw felt that man’s “progress” could be measured largely in terms of his destructive efficiency; he had progressed from the war clubs and axes to the nuclear bomb. Certainly man’s knowledge of the resources about him has increased at a marvelous rate, but where do we stand in comparison with a few hundred years ago when we begin to think of morality, or, in other words, the civilization of the human spirit?

Where today can one find a better man than Moses? or Job? or Abraham? Those who have lived in the centuries following the earthly ministry of Christ have they performed better for that than the men who lived in the centuries B.C.? To the man of the materialistic point of view, civilization has come a long way; to the man of the spiritual point of view, things continue as in days of old, with the same self-centered objectives, the same corruption. The only remedy is Christ.