Highlights in Restoration History. . .

HOW OUR PIONEERS USED ROMANS 14

Romans 14, which is sort of a mandate for unity in diversity, may well be one of the most neglected portions of the apostolic writings. The apostle lays down a principle in this chapter that would radically change the attitude that we often have in Churches of Christ about differences, if it were only heeded. After granting that his readers had different views on matters that they believed to be important, he says in verse 5: Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, or as the Good News renders it: “Each one should firmly make up his own mind.”

Paul is saying that each of us may hold even strong opinions that differ from those of others, and yet accept each other as sisters and brothers. He gives the grounds for allowing such a measure of liberty in verse 4: “Who are you to judge the servant of someone else? I t is his own Master who will decide whether he succeeds or fails. And he will succeed because the Lord is able to make him succeed.”

So I am not my brother’s keeper, but rather my brother’s brother. He is his own keeper, or the Lord is his keeper. Neither am I his judge. It is before his own Master (not I) that he stands or falls. The first verse, therefore, assigns me my responsibility toward my brother or sister: “Welcome the person who is weak in faith, but do not argue with him about his personal opinions.”

Much of our practice has been the opposite of this. We do argue or debate with our brother, and if he comes around to our way of thinking we accept him and extend the right hand of fellowship. If he does not agree with us, he is a brother in error, and he must “get right” or remain unworthy of our acceptance. Rom. 14 allows that a brother may be “wrong” or weak (he has views or practices different from your own), but he is still to be accepted—because he is a brother, not because he agrees with you. And the acceptance is not to be conditioned upon his changing his mind to your way of thinking. You are to accept him, not debate him!

There are instances in the work of our pioneers that show that they understood and practiced the great truths on fellowship in Rom. 14. Considering that Paul’s argument in Rom. 14 extends to 15:7 where he draws his grand conclusion, we see that Thomas Campbell looked to that passage as the basis of the Movement he launched for the unity of all believers. More than once in the Declaration and Address he appeals to Rom. 15:7 “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.”

Under proposition 2 of his Address he refers to this passage as the way of avoiding “uncharitable divisions” in the various congregations, and in the next proposition he gives a rule by which it can always be practiced: “Nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God.”

What grief would have been spared even among ourselves if we had heeded that rule! We have imposed upon each other, not so much what the Scriptures clearly set forth, but our own deductions of what the Bible says or does not say. Worse than ignoring Campbell’s wisdom is our indifference to the apostolic injunction: Receive one another even as Christ has received you. Were we right about everything when Christ received us?

A few pages over Campbell refers to Rom. 15:7 again. He notes that union with Christ is “the first and foundation truth of our Christianity,” and then says that our union with each other in Christ is next in significance—“that we receive each other, as Christ has also received us, to the glory of God.”

This principle of receiving each other on the same basis that Christ received us, which is the conclusion of the whole of Rom. 14, also found application in the dramatic case of Aylett Rains, who was on the verge of being disfellowshipped during the early years of the Movement. Since he held some Universalist’s views, the preachers of the Mahoning Association, which was the nucleus of the Campbell movement in the early 1820’s, were ready to disown him. During the proceedings Thomas Campbell made a speech in Rains’ behalf, avowing that he’d allow his hand to be burned from his arm before he would withdraw it from his young brother. He rather urged that they implore Rains to preach the gospel and keep his opinions to himself.

Alexander Campbell then spoke for Rains, quoting Rom. 14:1: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” Uncle Alex believed that it is in order to fellowship brothers in error. Had he not done so he would have had no one to fellowship!

Rains was saved for the work of reformation and went on to render excellent service for upwards of a half century, especially in Kentucky. But how many have we lost through a failure to practice what the apostle clearly enjoins? We are not to judge and disfellowship our brothers, but to love and accept them. If the Campbells could abide erroneous views as far out as Universalism, we should be able to respond more graciously to the differences that are allowed to keep. us separated these days.

In his Recollections of Men of Faith W. C. Rogers has a chapter on Aylett Rains, who was converted by Walter Scott. He includes a letter that Rains wrote to Alexander Campbell some years after the episode described above, explaining that his old errors had been slowly and imperceptibly erased from his mind. He was now giving his life to the work of an evangelist, believing that “the facts of the New Testament will conquer the world.” Those facts had conquered him, he told Campbell.

Campbell recorded Rains’ letter in the 1830 Millennial Harbinger (p. 148) in an article in which he gives his views on opinions, to the effect that even wrong opinions are not to be made tests of fellowship so long as they are held as private property. He explains on what grounds he would withdraw from a brother like Rains: “If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we reject him—not because of his opinions, but because of his attempting to make a faction, or to Lord it over God’s heritage.”

It is apparent that our most eminent pioneers understood the relevance of Rom. 14 and made significant use of it in launching their unity effort.

They were both wise and good men. They were wise in recognizing that erroneous views need not destroy a man or one’s relationship with him, but that the wrong notion will die a natural death sooner than if you try to kill it. They were good in that they put persons before party politics. We have much to learn from our forebears, vital knowledge that will save us a lot of grief and fratricide.—the Editor