The desire of every child of God should be religious unity. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Psalms 133:1). In John 17:20-22, Jesus prayed that His disciples would be one even as He was one with the Father. In 1 Corinthians 1:10, Paul exhorted the brethren at Corinth that there be no divisions among them. In Ephesians 4:3, Paul’s plea was that Christians endeavor “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
The Bible also teaches us that God is a lover of truth. Those of us who are followers of God should also be lovers of truth and haters of error. David once said, “…therefore I hate every false way” (Psalms 119:104). This should be the way we all feel.
If we love truth, we will hate error. When we put these scriptural facts together, we find that we should strive for unity but not at all costs. Unity must be based upon God’s word. To keep the unity of the Spirit, the unity must be founded upon what the Spirit has taught, not based on sincerity or good intentions.
Over the years many efforts to unite people in error have prevailed. We usually refer to this effort as “unity in diversity.” It is an attempt to get Christians to remain in fellowship while teaching very diverse things on doctrinal matters.
One way that some have tried to justify such an effort is by an appeal to Romans fourteen. In 1916 Phillip Y. Pendleton co-authored a commentary on Romans with J.W. McGarvey. McGarvey died before the book was finished and so Pendleton finished it alone, including Romans 14. Here is what he wrote at that place:
“In modern times controversy over meat sacrificed to idols is unknown, but the principle still applies as to instrumental music, missionary societies, etc. Such matters of indifference are not to be injected into terms of salvation or set up as tests of fellowship.”
In the 1930s and 40s, brethren argued that the false doctrine concerning premillennialism should be tolerated based on Roman 14. J.R. Clarke, an advocate of premillennialism, said,
“…my proposal for a ground of unity and fellowship to our challenging brethren is as follows: on the basis of Romans 14…we request that you receive us”
Carl Ketcherside wrote an article entitled, “Unity in Diversity” in which he equated the matters of Roman 14 with “every modern difference our brethren have had over the worship, work, and organization of the church.”
Earl F. Palmer, a Presbyterian, wrote a commentary on Romans called “Salvation by Surprise.” In reference to Romans 14, he said, “…other than the central question of the Lordship of Christ, all differences come within the scope of this passage.”
Finally, Norman Pittenger, in his book, “Time for Consent,” tells us that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible. Instead, he says “Those who reject homosexuals from fellowship have utterly failed to understand the Christian gospel.” He based his conclusion on his interpretation of Romans 14.
One of the issues over which brethren have always differed centers around marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and the question of fellowship. Some have advocated that false teaching concerning this grave issue falls under the scope of Romans 14. This passage has always been misapplied in an effort to justify maintaining fellowship with those who are openly teaching error on remarriage. Error, I might add, that results in the damnation of souls.
The real issue centers around what can be placed within the parameters of Romans 14. The context of Romans 14 tells us. Paul is dealing with matters of indifference before God. In other words, Paul is dealing with matters that are neither commended nor condemned by God. They violate no law of God. Any practice that is sinful, and therefore condemned by God, cannot be placed in Romans 14.
In Romans 14, Paul deals specifically with eating meat and esteeming one day above another. Whatever one practices regarding these two issues is not sinful. Paul says about the one who eats meat and the one who does not, “God hath received him” (ver. 3). He also says that “God is able to make him stand” (ver. 4). Later in the chapter, Paul says “there is nothing unclean of itself” (ver. 14).
It is clear that the issues that Paul is talking about are clean. In ver. 16 he exhorts the brethren, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of.” So, Paul is talking about things that can be called good.
These statements can only refer to things that are not sinful. Would Paul refer to something that was sinful as being good or clean? Of course not. We must conclude, then, that only things that are not sinful can be placed in Romans 14. To place sinful practices or any kind of false teaching within the parameters of Romans 14 is to pervert the text.
Instrumental music is not a matter of indifference. It is an addition to the command God has given to us to sing and, therefore, is a sinful practice when used to worship God.
The missionary society of the past was unauthorized. Like music, God specified what He wanted. More specifically, He specified who He wanted to do His work—the local church. To use any other institution to do the work of evangelism, edification of saints, or benevolence toward saints is sinful.
Homosexuality is not a matter of indifference. It is a form of sexual immorality that has always been condemned by God (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Clearly, it is sinful.
False teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage is not a matter of indifference. Not only is it sinful, but it also leads to sin on the part of others. When false doctrines on this subject are applied, it results in adultery, another form of sexual immorality. The end result is sin. These things cannot be placed in the context of Romans 14.
Brethren should never divide over matters that are indifferent to God. However, doctrine and morals always matter to Him and Paul had no intention of including them in his teaching in Romans fourteen; thus, we should not put them in either.
As the old slogan goes, “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love.”