Sermon Video: Having grace in disputable matters, part 1 - Romans 14:1-9

Chapter 14 of Romans is Paul's full argument as to why Christians ought to treat each other with grace with respect to "disputable matters."  In this first part, we see two key truths: (1) The need for grace when Christians disagree, and (2) the reality that disputable matters do indeed exist, they are not a flaw but rather evidence of our freedom in Christ.

How can Christians be OK with disagreement?  Simple, it is the will of God.  To further explain, God made us in his image with the ability to discern what is the best path for us in our circumstances when the issues at hand are not questions of morality but rather preference, personality, style, or emphasis.  We absolutely must have agreement on the core beliefs of our faith (i.e. orthodoxy), but outside of these truths the rule of thumb is grace.

To not "look Catholic" is a terrible rationale for a Baptist Church to base decisions upon.

The Red Bank Baptist Church of Lexington, South Carolina, recently voted (in Baptist Churches all members have a vote, and can vote at regular congregational business meetings regarding matters both great and small, i.e. the church budget, the calling/dismissing of a pastor, program and building issues, etc.) to remove a 7 ft. statue of Jesus which had been displayed outside the entrance to the church for the past decade.  According to Pastor Jeff Wright, "This is not a denomination issue, its a church decision.  We are removing it to end some confusion.  Some people have seen it, guests that have been here and have asked, 'Why is this on the front of a Baptist Church?"  In a letter the church sent to the artist, Delbert Baker Jr., Pastor Wright explained that the statue brings into question, "the theology and core values" of the church.

AP story: Baptist church's 'Catholic' Jesus statue to find new home

The Jesus statue at Red Bank Baptist Church that is being removed.

We live in interesting times.  On the one hand we have an ongoing debate that roils people's emotions and has led to protests and bloodshed concerning the removal of statues on public land which were erected to honor those who fought to retain slavery in America, and at the same time, we have a congregation choosing to remove a statue of Jesus from their property because it makes the building appear "too Catholic".

Whether or not a Baptist Church has a statue or painting of Jesus prominently displayed is not the most pressing theological question facing most churches, but the line of reasoning that led to the decision made by the people of Red Bank Baptist Church is of import to all churches, regardless of denomination.  We, as local churches and/or as part of a denomination, ought not to be deciding how we carry out our Biblical mandate to share the Gospel and make disciples on the basis of not doing so "like them".  The "them" in this case is the Catholic Church, but it could just have easily been the Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, or a host of others.  Why we do what we do, and how we do it, are questions far too important to be decided based upon a desire to have a unique "brand" as a church.

What is the proper standard for a church to base its decisions upon?  The bedrock standard is the Word of God itself.  Does the Bible encourage, prohibit, or is it silent on the issue at hand?  If the Bible encourages/commands the behavior/attitude in question, the discussion is over.  Our task is simply to obey.  If the Bible prohibits/condemns the behavior/attitude in question, again, the discussion is over, our task is to obey.  If the Bible is silent on the particular issue, we then look to see if principles contained in God's Word apply, we consider the wisdom of the collective Church's viewpoint on the issue over the ages, and we examine our own God-given reason and consciences as well.  These are the proper channels for discussion and debate among a local church or denomination regarding the choices we face and decisions we must make.  However, being "not Catholic", "not Pentecostal", or "not Presbyterian" is an invalid viewpoint, one that heightens divisions, encourages emotional instead of reasoned decisions, and in the end, leads to faulty theology.  In case you're wondering, making a decision based upon trying to mimic another church is an equally faulty methodology, albeit one that at least has a positive connotation.

Baptists are not alone in falling to this temptation.  Historically speaking many of the Counter-Reformation decisions of the Catholic Church were made on this same basis, to be "not Protestant", with less than helpful results.  Time and time again, churches have made decisions that were not based upon a careful and obedient understanding of God's Word, or upon wisdom received from our ancestors in the faith combined with our own reasons/consciences, but rather upon lesser criteria.  When we make decisions based upon reasoning and motivations that are less than ideal, or even downright foolish, how can we expect the decisions themselves to be God honoring and wise?

Not being privy to the internal discussions that took place at Red Bank Baptist prior to the decision, I don't know why they believe that the "theology and core values" of their church are threatened by an artist's depiction of Jesus, but if the answer contains any of this sentiment, "because it makes us look too Catholic", whether in the end they came to the right decision or not, the reasoning was dangerously faulty.




For some perspective, I write this as the pastor of an American Baptist Church with a rather unique architectural and artistic style among baptist churches that reflects the oil boom heritage of the Franklin area when the church sanctuary as it looks now was completed in 1904.  We have more art than most churches on the walls, including two giant murals of Jesus flanking the pulpit.  It would be a tragedy if a future generation decided to whitewash those murals to avoid looking like other Christians.

The sanctuary of First Baptist Church of Franklin

Sermon Video: Debatable Matters Part 3 - 1 Corinthians 8:9-13

There is a tension that exists between the assertion of individual rights and the obligations those same individuals have to other people.  That tension exists regularly within modern society, especially in the United States, but it is far more acute within the Church.  As disciples of Jesus Christ, we have been called to a life of service and self-sacrifice on behalf of both our brothers and sisters in Christ and the Lost to whom we are obligated to share the Gospel in love.
Paul understood this tension as he wrote to the Christians at the church in Corinth that although they were free to eat meat that had been offered to idols, for in reality idols are nothing for there is only one God, yet those same Christians needed to "be careful" lest the exercising of their freedom might inadvertently lead to the temptation to sin on the part of fellow Christians who did not posses the same level of knowledge.  It is Paul's contention, and thus our command from Holy Scripture, that as Christians we must be willing to sacrifice our individual rights, even if the action is in no way a sin for us, if it will be an example that leads others into sin, it will then become a sin for us.  The action itself doesn't go from being a matter of freedom to being a sinful choice, it is the action toward our fellow Christians, influencing them toward temptation (for them) that makes it a sinful choice for us.  I know that's somewhat complicated, here's it in a nutshell: If an action is ok for me, but not ok for a fellow Christian, and my doing that action might lead him/her into temptation, I am obligated to abstain for their sake.  Our obligations outweigh our rights, love must triumph over freedom.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Debatable Matters Part 2: Consistency vs. Conscience, 1 Corinthians 8:4-8

As Paul continues to speak to the issue at Corinth of whether or not Christians there should eat meat that had been previously offered as part of idol worship, he next delves into the topic of consistency.  It seems that the Christians at Corinth, like most everyone else, lacked true consistency in their thinking.  They knew that there is only one God, and that therefore idols do not represent anything real, but they still felt guilty about the association with them that eating meat entailed for them.

Inconsistency in our Christian Worldview is a common problem, and at times an exceedingly dangerous one, for all Christians.  While we may know the Truth, we do not always think and act in accordance with it, often resulting in contradictions that deny by our words/actions what we claim to believe.

Is our conscience the solution to an inconsistent worldview?  Unfortunately, as the Christians in Corinth were experiencing, our conscience can become warped or blunted through association with un-Biblical ideas and sinful actions.  The value, then, of our conscience is more along the lines of an early-warning system, something to cause us to be cautious, than an actual decision making tool.  In time, as our minds become more Christ-like through spiritual growth and discipleship, our conscience will follow suit, becoming more effective.

In the end, it is beneficial for Christians to focus upon the common ground that we all share (belief in one God, the Trinity, the Word, salvation by faith in Christ, etc.), those areas which are not debatable, as we recognize that we must agree on these core beliefs, but were not meant to agree on the host of secondary issues.  Within that common ground of belief, we also as Christians share a common purpose, for regardless of our background or perspective as Christians, we all have been called to live by and for God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Disputable Matters Part 1: Knowledge vs. Love - 1 Corinthians 8:1-3

In this first of a three part series examining chapter 8 of 1 Corinthians, Paul discusses an issue which had divided the Christian community in Corinth.  The particular issue at Corinth was the association of the meat that they ate with pagan idol worship.  Before answering the question of the propriety of eating such meat in chapter 10, Paul first speaks to the principles which underpin our decision making process, as Christians, in the areas which are "disputable".  Which begs the question, how do we define what is disputable and what is not?  The primary criteria for such a distinction is this: Does the Bible directly address the issue in question or not?  What the Word of God directly commends or condemns remains normative for all Christians, no matter when or where they live.  Yet the Bible is not exhaustive, there are situations we face each day which require Christians to consider Biblical principles and our own conscience instead of direct instruction (which in many cases is not available).  So then, those areas not directly addressed in Scripture are "debatable" and we ought to expect various Christians to come to somewhat different conclusions about them.
How do we act when dealing with an issue about which we disagree with a fellow Christian(s)?  Paul warns us that knowledge, while we all have the capacity to have some of it, is never perfect.  Therefore, our certainty regarding debatable matters ought to be tempered by humility rather than bolstered by pride.  Lastly, Paul reminds us that love is the hallmark of those known by God, for it is the Fruit of the Spirit that confirms the faith of God's people, not their answers to a quiz about non-core issues of theology.

In the end, the first part of Paul's discussion of debatable matters reminds us that even though we all "know" what we think on various issues, we must remain humble and not let pride harden our hearts to those who disagree with us.  What you or I think about issues not directly addressed in Scripture is a matter of freedom given to us by God, whether or not we love our fellow Christians is not; that requirement is clearly spelled out for us in God's Word.

To watch the video, click on the link below: