What if it isn’t a disputable matter?
Hey, thanks again for sending in questions related to our recent sermons. As you know, we’ve been going through Romans. We got to Romans 14, beginning of 15, where the believers in the church are having a clash over what is acceptable to eat. The Jewish believers still thought the kosher laws were in effect, and so they wanted to follow those.
The Gentile believers, of course, thought all the kosher or non-kosher foods were okay to eat. And Paul declares these disputable matters. They’re really inconsequential. What you eat, what you don’t eat, don’t spend time arguing about that. That’s on one level. It’s disputable. It’s do whatever you want.
But on another level, we saw that what they were eating revealed something deeper in their hearts — that the ones who were not eating the food were not fully trusting in Christ to give them their status with God. In Christ, we have his status. We have his access to God.
It’s determined by what he has done. It’s not determined by what we do. And so, yes, eating food or not eating food is not going to interfere with your relationship with God. And so he says these Jewish believers in this case have weak faith. Yet still, talk about those things patiently, because it’s okay that they don’t eat.
That’s inconsequential. But what they don’t eat is revealing something deeper. So you can have a deeper conversation about what’s going on in their heart while leaving the surface level matter of whether they eat or not — leave that alone. And Paul says these are disputable matters.
They’re inconsequential, right? So the question this week though is, what if it’s over something that’s not disputable? And something that is consequential. What if it’s something that God says not to do, or something God says to do, or God has declared this is the right way to live, and then people are arguing about that?
So it’s not about food. It’s about how we treat each other in relationship. If we’re stealing, or in 1 Corinthians, people were into all kind of behaviors where God says, do not act that way. How do we approach somebody then? Is it this same protocol of leave the issue alone, but talk about the deeper level stuff? In those cases, no, it’s not the same protocol.
If it’s an indisputable matter, if it’s something that is consequential, something where God has spoken, do this and not do this, then you have to speak with the person. And the biblical process for that is one person goes and shares the correct biblical perspective.
If the person doesn’t repent and turn around, a couple people go. If a couple people have the same outcome, you take it before the whole church, and eventually, there needs to be some exclusion from the worship service. It’s called church discipline. So the person gets the idea, okay, this is not what God has for me. And those, as you probably know, are for people that call themselves Christian.
If they’ve turned to the side and they’re not willing to come back. Now, if somebody’s not a Christian, then there’s not the same protocol there. Somebody is brand new, just visiting the church. Of course, they’re going to come with lots of things that aren’t Christian behaviors.
And at that point, it’s share Christ, share Christ, share Christ. Once they see Christ, receive Christ, then the expectation is that they would follow him. But for people who are saying, I’m following him, I’ve committed my life to him, and they are making this left turn, or right turn, away from him, then that’s when we go and speak — individually, small group, larger church, and eventually, exclusion from the body, all with the hope and expectation of repentance, coming back, coming back to the body of Christ.
But Romans 14 and 15, that’s not what’s going on. What you eat, what you don’t eat, that is inconsequential. And Paul says, just leave that alone, whether they’re doing it or not. Leave that alone. And yet, you can still have this deeper conversation about what they’re trusting in for their access to God. So we hope that’s helpful.
See you next time.
