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. And 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, then, should also be lovers of truth, and therefore, 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 cost. 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 Rom. 14. In 1916 Phillip Y. Pendleton co-authored a commentary on Romans with J.W. McGarvey. McGarvey died before the book was finished and so Pendlenton 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 1930’s and 40’s, 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 Pittneger 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 main issues facing brethren today centers around marriage, divorce, and remarriage and the question of fellowship. Some are advocating that false teaching concerning this grave issue falls under the scope of Romans 14. It is an effort to justify maintaining fellowship with those who are openly teaching error on the subject of 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 condemned by God cannot be placed in Romans 14. Any practice that is sinful cannot be placed within the scope of Romans 14. Paul deals specifically with eating meat and esteeming one day above another. Whatever one practices regarding these two issues is not sin. 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). Whatever Paul is talking about, then, is clean. In ver. 16 he exhorts the brethren, “let not then your good be evil spoken of.” Whatever Paul is talking about is “good.” These statements can only refer to things that are not sinful. We must conclude, then, that only these kinds of things 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 a sinful practice. The missionary society of the past was unauthorized; hence, it was sinful. Homosexuality is not a matter of indifference. It is sinful. The work of the church is not a matter of indifference. It is a matter of faith for God has specifically told us what it is. To involve the church in something else is sinful. False teaching on the marriage question is not a matter of indifference. It is sinful and leads to sin on the part of others. These things cannot be placed in the context of Romans 14. If they are, it is a perversion of the text.