1. "Ultimately, those who deconstruct their faith do so by finding Christianity wanting according to some other standard. They have some standard of morality which they regard as authoritative and when they measure Christianity against that stick, it comes up short."

2. "No human authority is ultimate, only God's is. Scripture is inerrant, but our interpretations aren't."

3. "The stricter are tempted to judge, the looser are tempted to despise. So if you're the stricter one in any given situation, you're tempted to condemn the other person as a compromising liberal. But if you're the looser one, you're tempted to despise, to look down on, to scorn the stricter one as a fussy fundamentalist."

4. "Strong and weak is not a universally valid paradigm for every possible issue of conscience. It is not the case that the more liberated the conscience, the better. Some people's consciences are far too liberated. They are more liberated than God. Some people feel free to do what God forbids."

5. "Autonomy means making your own rules, deciding what's right and what's wrong for you. The essence of sin is rejecting God's lordship and making yourself your own lord. That's what we've all done. We've all rejected God's rule and we all deserve to be punished by God forever for that rejection."

6. "Don't judge others now because when you judge, you steal God's job."

7. "Paul is exhorting you not to individually excommunicate someone in your heart. Your mind and heart do not have that authority. It's not your job as an individual Christian. So if this local church continues to affirm someone's profession of faith, so should you."

8. "Resentment is like drinking poison and then waiting for the other person to die."

9. "A whole lot of deconstruction narratives start with pastors who wrongly impose unbiblical rules on churches. A whole lot of deconstruction narratives start with churches that require their members to do things Scripture doesn't require."

10. "If Christ has borne the full weight of your sins, you can bear the difficulty of lovingly bearing with someone else's different conscience. The way to bear with others is to remember what Christ bore for you."

Observation Questions

1. According to Romans 14:1, how does Paul instruct believers to treat "the one who is weak in faith," and what does he warn against doing with this person?

2. In Romans 14:3-4, what two opposite responses does Paul forbid—one for "the one who eats" and one for "the one who abstains"—and what reason does he give for why neither should respond this way?

3. What three reasons does Paul give in Romans 14:7-9 for why "none of us lives to himself" and "none of us dies to himself"?

4. According to Romans 14:13-15, what does Paul call believers to decide, and what serious consequence does he warn can result from grieving a brother by what you eat?

5. In Romans 14:17, how does Paul describe what the kingdom of God is and is not about?

6. What command does Paul give in Romans 15:7, and what standard or model does he provide for how believers should carry out this command?

Interpretation Questions

1. Paul uses the terms "weak" and "strong" to describe believers with different convictions about food and holy days. Based on the sermon's explanation, why does Paul use the term "weak," and why is it important to understand that a "looser" conscience is not always better?

2. How do the three reasons Paul gives for not judging (shared motive in vv. 5-6, shared master in vv. 7-9, and shared accounting in vv. 10-12) work together to discourage believers from condemning one another over disputable matters?

3. What is the difference between a "stumbling block" as Paul describes it in verses 13-15 and simply doing something that another believer disapproves of or finds offensive? Why is this distinction important for understanding Paul's teaching?

4. In Romans 14:23, Paul states that "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." How does this principle relate to both protecting one's own conscience and understanding why churches should be careful about what they require of their members?

5. How does Paul's instruction to "welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you" (Romans 15:7) serve as both the summary and the ultimate motivation for everything he has taught in this passage about handling disagreements over disputable matters?

Application Questions

1. Think of a specific issue where your conscience is either stricter or looser than another church member's. Are you more tempted to judge them (if you're stricter) or despise them (if you're looser)? What would it look like this week to resist that temptation and instead put the best construction on their motives?

2. Is there a freedom you regularly exercise that might pressure a newer or weaker believer to act against their own conscience if they observed you? What practical step could you take to protect their conscience without abandoning your own convictions?

3. The sermon mentioned that pursuing peace and mutual upbuilding means "caring more about the unity of the church than you do about getting your way or winning an argument." In what current disagreement or tension in your life could you apply this principle, and what would that look like concretely?

4. When you encounter a church member whose practice or conviction differs from yours on a third-tier issue, how can you remind yourself that they belong to the same Lord, aim to honor Him, and will give account to Him—rather than mentally "excommunicating" them in your heart?

5. Romans 15:7 calls us to welcome others as Christ has welcomed us. What specific aspect of how Christ welcomed you (despite your sin, freely, at great cost to Himself) most challenges you to extend that same welcome to a church member you find difficult to embrace?

Additional Bible Reading

1. 1 Corinthians 8:1–13 — This passage addresses a closely parallel situation involving food sacrificed to idols and reinforces Paul's teaching about not causing a weaker brother to stumble.

2. Mark 7:14–23 — Jesus teaches that nothing outside a person can defile them, which is the basis Paul cites for his conviction that no food is unclean in itself.

3. Colossians 2:16–23 — Paul warns against letting others judge you regarding food, drink, or holy days, showing how these matters relate to freedom in Christ.

4. Galatians 5:13–15 — This passage shows how Christian freedom should be used to serve one another in love rather than as an opportunity for the flesh.

5. Matthew 18:15–20 — Jesus provides instructions for addressing sin between believers, which the sermon referenced as the proper process for pursuing rebuke and reconciliation.

Sermon Main Topics

I. Introduction: The Challenge of Disentangling Faith from Human Traditions

II. Over Disputable Matters, Disagree Without Dividing (Romans 14:1)

III. Don't Despise or Judge Members Whose Consciences Differ from Yours (Romans 14:2-4)

IV. Don't Judge Because There's Only One Judge (Romans 14:5-12)

V. Don't Lead Others to Sin, But Protect Their Consciences and Promote Peace and Growth (Romans 14:13-22)

VI. Protect Your Own Conscience by Obeying It (Romans 14:23)

VII. Welcome Others as Christ Has Welcomed You (Romans 15:1-7)

Detailed Sermon Outline

the currently trendy term for leaving Christianity is deconstructing, as in, I'm deconstructing my faith. The term is often used by someone who grew up in the church, but then as an adult comes to reject Christianity's moral and theological teaching. One common refrain in deconstruction narratives is the escape from two harmful restrictions into a healthier freedom. The escape from two restrictive rules into a more affirming tolerance. Ultimately, those who deconstruct their faith do so by finding Christianity wanting according to some other standard.

They have some standard of morality which they regard as authoritative and when they measure Christianity against that stick, it comes up short. Or they have some standard of rationality and when they run Christianity through that scanner, they detect some fatal contamination.

But even those who don't deconstruct their faith often come to question received rules or practices that they grew up with. Are all those restrictive rules really the will of God? For those who remain convinced of the truth of Christianity, what comes next is not deconstruction, but disentangling. Disentangling God's commands from human traditions. Disentangling truth from error.

Disentangling Christian conviction from cultural custom. And that's a necessary step for every Christian to be able to take. No human authority is ultimate, only God's is. Scripture is inerrant, but our interpretations aren't. Sometimes this disentangling can provoke a crisis of faith.

Sometimes people start what they think is disentangling and they end up deconstructing.

What can a local church do to help its members disentangle so that they don't deconstruct? How can a church clarify the difference between Christ's commands and human customs.

This is the second sermon in a two-part series on the conscience. Last week we considered our relationships to our own consciences. This week we'll consider how the conscience relates to our life together as a local church. And to do so we will study one extended discussion of the issue in Scripture, Romans 14:1-12. To 15:7.

I was assigned a topical sermon. We're going to manage to make it an expositional sermon. Romans 14:1 to 15:7. Go ahead and turn to the passage, pages 948 and 949 of the Pew Bibles. For some background, Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome in the mid-50s A.D.

Throughout the first two-thirds of the letter, he offers a magnificent exposition of the good news of Jesus. And we're most of the way through that first two-thirds in Wednesday Night Bible Study. Coming up to the end of chapter 11. In chapter 12, Paul turns to the gospel's implications for the life of the church. And in chapter 14, he comes to apply the truths of the gospel to a situation in which Christians, different convictions of conscience, were threatening their unity as a church.

In response, Paul provides a master class in how to pursue unity despite ongoing clashes of conscience. The question Romans 14:1-15:7 answers, and that this sermon will answer, is this. You'll see it in your bulletin. How can you promote unity When consciences clash. How can you promote unity when consciences clash?

If you'd like to follow along, we've written the outline on pages 13 and 14.

In this sermon, Paul's agenda will be my agenda. I have no other aim than to do for our local church what Paul was doing for these Roman assemblies 2,000 years ago. Paul, as we'll see, did not try to adjudicate their disagreement. Instead, he tried to help them live together in unity despite their disagreement. As a result, this sermon may disappoint many of you.

Some of you might have one big issue on your mind or a whole range of issues that you're either wondering about for yourself or or you're wondering whether what other members think and do is wrong.

Just to name a few that could be there: what music or TV shows Christians may listen to or watch? What are permissible ways to educate one's children? What are legitimate or necessary ways for Christians to understand and respond to racism. What legislative positions, ethical issues, or party affiliations should bar a Christian from voting for a candidate for office? I will not attempt to resolve any of those disputes.

I'm not here to give a rabbinic style answer to every possible practical question any of you could ever have. If I even tried to do that, the sermon would never end, and then we never get to put any of it into practice anyways. I'm not here to say, this is right, this is wrong, this is out, this is in. Instead, I'm here to help you grow in your love for every church member and your ability to build up and unify other church members, even and especially when you disagree with them. That's what Paul's doing.

That's what I'm doing. How can you promote unity when consciences clash. We'll find six answers as we walk through the passage. Number one, which we see in Romans 14, verse 1, over disputable matters, disagree without dividing. In Romans 14:1, Paul writes, As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

Here Paul sets the terms for the whole rest of the discussion. The starting point is that believers in Rome had differently informed consciences about what they were permitted to eat and whether to observe Jewish holy days. We'll discuss this more in the next point, so here I'll just say that some believers, predominantly from the Jewish minority in the church, were convinced that the old covenant food laws were still binding.

Not that they were essential to salvation, but that they personally were required to observe them. And other believers, mainly from the Gentile majority, were convinced that these food laws were no longer binding. Paul is saying that this disagreement should be no bar to fellowship Welcome him, welcome the one who disagrees, and don't welcome him with a view to debating disputable matters. Paul operates here with a hierarchy of how to treat different kinds of theological and moral issues. And when we fill in the rest of Scripture, we can build up a kind of three-tiered system of theological triage.

For a good discussion of this, you can read N. T. Wright and Crowley's book on the conscience, which I'm borrowing from here. Three-tiered theological triage. First level issues are central and essential to Christianity. Denying a first level doctrine like the Trinity or the deity of Christ calls your profession of faith into question. Second level issues create reasonable boundaries between Christians such as different denominations and local churches.

Churches. We find some matters that are commanded in Scripture, like baptism. But then the question arises, who should be baptized? Where disagreement on issues like baptism and church government persists, different local churches and denominations rightly and necessarily follow. If you say an infant should be baptized and I say they shouldn't, we can't both be right.

And a church's practice is going to violate one of our consciences one way or the other. Third level issues are often called disputable matters based on this very verse, just offering a translation of what Paul calls opinions. These third level issues aren't necessarily unimportant. They can be important, they can have serious consequences, but members of the same church should be able to disagree with each other and still have close fellowship. That's exactly Paul's point in this verse.

He's creating this sort of third tier category for us. This is the conviction that guides his whole discussion. To put names on the three tiers and unpack them a little bit, we could call tier one gospel doctrine, tier two gospel polity, and tier three, everything else, or again, disputable matters. The first two tiers are the message we proclaim and the structure that the ordinances of the church form us into. Gospel preaching creates gospel people who form a gospel polity.

That's how a church comes into existence. So to form a church together, we need to agree about the doctrines that are at the heart of the gospel and in order to sustain our witness together, we need to agree about doctrines that directly undergird or unpack the gospel. And we also need to agree about the shape that a church takes. Who should be baptized? Who is authorized to celebrate the Lord's Supper?

Questions like that. So anytime you find yourself disagreeing with a church member, ask, what category is this disagreement in? What territory are we in? Is this gospel doctrine? Is this gospel polity about how a church should be shaped?

Or is it in that huge category known as everything else? In terms of its weight and dimensions, is this issue like a suitcase you need to check before you get on the plane? Or is it a small personal item you can stash under the seat in front of you? Some theological and moral issues are utterly black and white. And they're of such gravity that if anyone disagrees or practices differently, division rightly should follow.

For instance, in 1 Corinthians 6:18, Paul exhorts us, Flee from sexual immorality. And in 1 Corinthians 10:14, he says, Flee from idolatry. Those are not disputable matters. Those are not matters Christians can just disagree about and still have diversity. The two things we need to agree on to form a church are gospel doctrine and gospel polity.

And nearly every article of our church's statement of faith fits pretty well into one of those two categories. Similarly, the essence of our moral obligations to Christ and to each other is distilled in our church covenant. So I'd ask a very practical question. What unrepentant sin or unrepentant theological error would we as a church in principle remove a member for as an act of discipline? It can all be traced back, at least by implication, to violating something that's in our statement of faith or church covenant.

Because we're just summarizing what we understand, Scripture, to teach about those issues. So as a local church, our statement of faith and church covenant draw the boundaries of tiers one and two for us, which means they give us this huge, wide, vast tract of wide open territory of stuff we can disagree about and still be unified together. Everything else is a livable disagreement. So here in Romans 14:1 and throughout the passage, Paul's working within a framework of issues that Christians can disagree about and remain members of the same church. That's why he doesn't press for uniformity of opinion.

As he says in verse 5, each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. This flexibility exists only within boundaries of right belief and right living that are utterly inflexible. Paul's willingness to allow diversity on disputable matters depends on unity, on fundamental matters. But the main lesson from verse 1 is this: It is possible to disagree without dividing. A church can have unity without uniformity.

And sometimes it's the very lack of uniformity that highlights the source and power of our unity.

Point two, don't despise or judge members whose consciences differ from yours. This is Paul's summary exhortation, his main teaching, verses 2 to 4. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?

It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. So to give a little bit more detail about the background here, in the Church of Rome, some believers, especially Jewish believers, held that they were still obligated to obey the old covenant law. Paul's reference to eating only vegetables is not about vegetarianism, but it's about people who decided to abstain from meat altogether because of the difficulty of obtaining kosher meat. And perhaps also to avoid any possibility of ever eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols.

The fact that the comprehensive keeping of the old covenant law is in view is also shown in verse 5. When Paul mentions that one person esteems one day as better than another. So in verse 5, Paul clearly refers to the Sabbath. Now, these Jewish believers weren't saying that the observance of the Old Covenant law was necessary for salvation, nor were they saying that Gentile believers had to observe it. If they did, if that's what they were saying, Paul would have responded to them the way he does in Galatians.

He would have pronounced them as heretics, preachers of a different gospel. But instead, this conviction governed only their own practice. And by contrast, the Gentile majority of the church, along with some Jews like Paul himself, held that they were not bound to observe the Old Testament ceremonial law. But these differences of conscience would show up in living color in the church's fellowship meals. That's the assumed context here when Paul says to welcome.

He means quite literally welcome at the same table. So the church would come together regularly for fellowship meals. These perhaps included the Lord's Supper. And what's going to happen when everyone shows up but not everyone can eat what's on the table? What are the stricter people going to think of the looser people and vice versa?

So what's Paul's solution? It's that those with more permissive consciences shouldn't despise those with stricter consciences and those with stricter consciences shouldn't oh, I'm sorry, I'm reversing it. Oh, no. I'm trying to help you guys keep this straight. Hang on.

Double check. Not the one who eats despise. Okay, yes, that's right, sorry. Keeping it all straight, here we go. This is Paul's solution.

Just tricked myself. Those with more permissive consciences shouldn't despise those with stricter consciences, right. And those with stricter consciences shouldn't judge those with looser consciences. Here's how one scholar summarizes it. Gentiles must not regard observance of the Jewish law as incompatible with Christian faith.

And Jews must not regard it as essential to Christian faith. Now, few issues that we face today directly map on to the situation here in Romans 14 and 15. But the temptations Paul points to are perennial. Any time you interact with a church member whose conscience is tighter or looser than yours, you'll be tempted. In one of these two directions.

The stricter are tempted to judge, the looser are tempted to despise. So if you're the stricter one in any given situation, you're tempted to condemn the other person as a compromising liberal.

You're tempted to see them as faithless. You're tempted to say that they're accommodating their witness away in an effort to fit in with the world. You're tempted to judge them because it seems to you like you're on the moral high ground and they're way down there. But if you're the looser one, you're tempted to despise, to look down on, to scorn the stricter one as a fussy fundamentalist. Why are they making up rules when God doesn't?

Why can't they handle their own freedom in Christ? You're tempted to view the stricter person as weak. Maybe even a coward. Paul's point is simple: don't do either. Don't judge those who are looser than you, and don't despise those who are tighter than you.

Now, it is crucial to recognize why Paul uses the labels strong and weak. He is not, I repeat not, saying that a looser conscience is always better. Instead, he uses the term weak because while these weaker ones are genuine believers, they have the weakness of being bound where God doesn't bind them. They're convinced that the Old Covenant law still binds when it doesn't. They have genuine faith in Christ but they don't follow that faith through to its necessary conclusion in recognizing that Christ has fulfilled and to set aside the Mosaic law.

So talking about entangling their faith and their practice of what it means to be a Christian is more entangled with what is now an optional set of cultural practices. It isn't objectively binding but they feel bound by it and that is a kind of weakness. Now the strong, by contrast, rightly recognize that this set of practices is not required. So strong and weak is not a universally valid paradigm for every possible issue of conscience. It is not the case that the more liberated the conscience, the better.

Some people's consciences are far too liberated. They are more liberated than God. Some people feel free to do what God forbids. Sometimes, having a stricter conscience than someone else is a sign of maturity. It's a sign of discernment, humility, submitting your will to God's and discerning it better than that other person.

Sometimes seeing a boundary where another believer sees none means you're right, they're wrong and you have an obligation to try to help them not burst through that barrier that God has put up. But more on that in point three. Point three, don't judge. Because there's only one of those.

This is the substance of verses 5 to 12. Throughout this portion, Paul double clicks on his first exhortation, addressing those whose consciences are still bound by the Mosaic law. He exhorts them not to judge those whose consciences aren't. And he gives three reasons not to judge. First reason, Don't judge because you have a shared motive.

The one who eats and the one who abstains have one goal: to glorify the Lord. Look at verses 5 to 6.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day observes it in honor of the Lord; the one who eats eats in honor of the Lord since he gives thanks to God while the one who abstains abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. Both parties obey their conscience in order to obey God. The one who eats aims at nothing other than the one who abstains.

Both parties aim at the glory of God. Both parties thank God for giving them everything they can accept with a clear conscience. Some of us might be tempted to dismiss Paul here as a radical relativist. Is he saying there's no right answer and everyone just gets to do whatever they want? Not at all.

He's got a conviction on these issues, as we'll see. Paul is not a relativist, but a realist. He recognizes that Christians will disagree about issues that have serious practical consequences. And he wants to build a unity that is stronger than those disagreements. So often we're tempted to treat those who disagree with us on any issue as if they can't possibly be Christians.

You jump straight from they're wrong about this to they must not be saved. But notice how respectful and patient and sympathetic Paul is with both sides. Notice how Paul puts the best possible construction on each party's actions and motives. That's what he's doing when he says they both do this to the Lord in honor of the Lord. He goes out of his way to affirm that each party is serving the Lord in the way their conscience insists they must or can.

Second reason not to judge. In verses 7 to 9, Paul reminds us that we have a shared master. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

What Paul says here of Christians is an intensification or deepening of what is true of all people. God is the creator and therefore the owner and master of every human being. We all belong to him. Here, Paul and all of Scripture is starkly at odds with the most deeply cherished value in the modern West.

Autonomy. Autonomy means making your own rules, deciding what's right and what's wrong for you. Autonomy means deciding your own values. This is worthwhile, this is not. This is good, this is bad.

This is worth living for, this isn't. If you're not a believer in Jesus, what values are you most keen to decide?

For yourself. But Paul is assuming here the basic truth of creation, that because we were made by God, we were made for him. Because God is our maker, he's our master, our ruler, our possessor. And the essence of sin is rejecting God's lordship and making yourself your own lord. That's what we've all done.

We've all rejected God's rule and we all deserve to be punished by God forever for that rejection.

But because God is merciful, he sent his son into the world, our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to live for us and die for us. On the cross, Jesus paid the full penalty for all the sins of those who would turn from sin and trust in him. And he rose from the grave, triumphing over death forever and being installed as Lord of all. Now he reigns in God's presence at God's right hand in heaven. And he calls all people everywhere.

To turn from sin and trust in him, to submit to him as Lord. If you're trying to make yourself your own Lord, there's only one way to get into a right relationship with the real Lord. That's through trusting in Jesus Christ and turning from sin. If you've never repented of sin and put your faith in Christ, do so today. So as Paul puts it in verse nine, Christ died and rose again in order to be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

The living, which means that for those of us who do trust in Christ, all that we do, we do for him, depending on him and trusting ourselves to him. None of us lives to himself because we live in Christ. None of us dies to himself because we've already died in Christ and death will usher us into the presence of Christ. So how does that motivate you not to judge someone? When you see a fellow church member disagreeing with you on a third-tier issue, remember that they're doing it for Jesus.

They're seeking to honor him in all they do just as you are. They belong to him just as much as you do. They're citizens of the same kingdom and they're headed to the same destination.

A third reason not to judge in verses 10 to 12 is your shared accounting.

Don't judge your brothers and sisters in Christ because both you and they will soon give account to the one true judge.

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Don't judge others now. Because soon enough, you will be the one who's judged. Don't judge others now because when you judge, you steal God's job. When Paul speaks of giving an account in verse 12, he isn't saying that on the last day believers will stand trial with their eternal destiny at stake. No, if you trust in Christ, your positive verdict on that day is guaranteed by his blood and righteousness now.

You are declared righteous now and you will be declared righteous then. Instead, Paul's language of giving an account means that in the final judgment to come, God will evaluate each of us and he will reward us in keeping with how we have fulfilled his will. There are degrees of reward in heaven which correspond to degrees of faithfulness on earth. So when Paul says don't judge, what he means is Don't condemn your brother or sister. Don't render a verdict on them in your heart or with your mouth that amounts to they're not one of his.

Don't leap from a difference of opinion to a verdict on the state of their soul. Even if you never do so in words, you'll often be tempted to in your heart. So what are some signs that you have judged a brother or sister, even if you haven't said so out loud or maybe even admitted it to yourself. That could be a good question to discuss over lunch. Paul is exhorting you not to individually excommunicate someone in your heart.

When someone's behavior is so out of keeping with their profession of faith that it calls their faith into question, It is the church's job to remove them from fellowship. Your mind and heart do not have that authority. It's not your job as an individual Christian. So if this local church continues to affirm someone's profession of faith, so should you. Now, all this talk of not judging is probably raising at least two questions in a number of your minds.

First, what do you do when someone else's sin is bothering you? Second, what do you do when you disagree with a church member about whether something is a sin? I've heard these questions from enough of you in the last week that I think it's worth spending a few times on each one. Question one, what do you do when another church member's sin is bothering you, first we need to distinguish: Is the sin against you or not? If the sin is against you, you have two options.

Option number one for sin against you: Forgive and forbear. No matter how someone sins against you, you must forgive them. This means resolving not to make them pay for their sin. It means willing and desiring their good regardless of whether they ever make things right. Jesus teaches us in Mark 11:25, and whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

Tim Keller's new book on forgiveness is excellent. On this point. And the second aspect of this first response is to forbear, forgive and forbear. You simply forgive and move on. You absorb the bumps, you absorb the cost.

You don't let it diminish your respect and affection for that person. The smaller the offense, the better sense this option makes. To have any kind of relationship with any sinful human being, you must have a category for forbearance. As Paul exhorts us in Colossians 3:12-13, Put on then as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. But when someone sins against you, your other option is to first forgive, and then pursue rebuke and reconciliation.

You want to do this when the sin is more serious, serious enough that even after you've forgiven them, it's bothering you. Maybe bothering you because of its consequences on you, maybe bothering you because of your concern for that person's spiritual well-being. In that case, after forgiving the person from the heart, approach them privately, spell out their sin, and plead with them to repent. That's what Jesus instructs us to do in Matthew 18:15-17. Whether the relationship is reconciled and restored depends on how they respond.

You initiate but they're the ones who have to repent. Now, still under the category of being bothered by other people's sin, what if you're bothered by a sin that's not against you? You just witness it. You can either pray for them and say nothing to anyone but God about it or talk to them about it. And the two big variables that should influence your decision about whether to approach this other believer about this sin that was not against you, two variables are this: number one, how confident are you that they're sinning?

Number two, how serious is the sin? This calls for discernment. There's no case law on this. There's no mathematical equation, you just run it through and it spits out the right answer. But the more confident you are that it is a sin and the more serious of a sin it is, the better idea it is to intervene.

As James 5:19-20 says, My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. In this case, if you're not sure what to do, you should feel free to seek counsel, but only in order to figure out what you're going to do, not to badmouth the other person. Your goal has to be the other person's good, not your venting. And remember that your goal is always to gain the other person. Your goal is always to win them back to Christ and holiness, not win an argument.

Whether the sin is against you or not, an option that is open to you in no circumstances whatsoever is this: silently judging the person in your heart. The option you don't have is bearing a grudge and growing embittered against that person. As one astute student of human nature put it, Resentment is like drinking poison and then waiting for the other person to die.

But then comes our second question. Let's say you're trying to talk to this other person about their sin and it turns out you two disagree about whether something is a sin. What then? One question to ask here is whether there is a difference of theology or biblical interpretation underneath here. So, One Christian views Sunday as the Sabbath and thinks it's a sin to do any type of work on a Sunday.

Another doesn't. You're free to address the theological issue if you like, but right here in Romans 14, we see Christians disagreeing about the Sabbath. Recognize there are theological and practical issues Christians will likely continue to disagree about, like we have over the Sabbath, at least, for apparently 2,000 years. But if there isn't a theological difference in play and you're going to try to have a conversation about it, you still want to make sure that you have a shared understanding of the moral basis of how you evaluate the issue. Remember, as we talked about last week, that your conscience works by applying a universal rule to a specific situation.

It evaluates the particular in light of the universal. A judgment of conscience involves evaluating some situation outside the Bible in light of a principle from the Bible. There are always two parts to the judgment. You might disagree about the biblical principle. You might disagree about this situation out here and whether it counts as violating that biblical principle.

So if you decide to pursue a conversation, try to come up with every relevant biblical passage and theological principle that might bear on the issue. Pull out on the table and look at them together. Try to see how long a list you can make of everything you agree with each other about regarding this issue. Make sure you're agreeing about the biblical basis for how you should evaluate this disputed behavior and only then discuss the specific behavior. When you do, give each person a chance to characterize it, to describe it.

And if you think the other person's understanding of the behavior itself is defective, try to improve it and see if they agree with your improvement. But even here, even at that step, you will frequently find Christians disagreeing. Is going five miles an hour over the speed limit a sin? What about jaywalking? What about not tipping at a restaurant?

Recognize that you can agree about a scriptural rule and still disagree about its application. Locating the disagreement helps to contain it. Your disagreement is only here. It's not about the lordship of Jesus but about whether this action violates that rule. And remember that not every disagreement is a matter of conscience.

Some are matters of preference. Not every issue of preference is an issue of conscience. Which is which? That's another good lunchtime conversation. Have fun.

All that was in response to what is and isn't judging and how to engage each other's different consciences without judging while aiming to do each other good. There's plenty more to say, but we will move on. Point four, don't lead others to sin, but protect their consciences and promote peace and growth.

This summarizes Paul's exhortations in verses 13 to 22. From here through the end of the passage, Paul instructs the strong about how to accommodate and protect those with stricter consciences. Look first at verses 13 to 15. Therefore, let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

In verse 14, Paul reveals his own position on these issues. Based on the teaching of Jesus himself, recorded for us in places like Mark chapter seven, Paul is convinced that the Mosaic laws are no longer binding. Paul sees kosher eating and Sabbath keeping as neither prohibited nor required. Both are permitted but not necessary. Looking at the conscience spectrum back on page 13 of the bulletin, Paul's position is that all these issues are in that clear area in the middle, neither prohibited nor required.

But if someone's conscience prohibits them from eating, then they must obey their conscience and not eat. Always obey your conscience's prohibitions. Now, this discussion here, is one of the longest sustained treatments of any single issue in all the New Testament letters. There's spiritual gifts and kind of corporate worship in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 14. That's kind of up there.

This is one of the longest times Paul spends going after a single issue. And you will notice that though he articulates his position, he spends absolutely zero effort trying to persuade anyone of it. He does not argue for his view. He is not concerned here and now in this conversation to try to correct those who are in the wrong. He's convinced he's right, but he has more pressing concerns.

He's far more interested in unity than he is in uniformity. To protect that unity, he exhorts us not to put a stumbling block in front of anyone and then he even says not to destroy someone for whom Christ died. Here's what a stumbling block is not. Here would be a wrong way to understand this. It is not doing anything that anyone in the church ever disapproves of or disagrees with.

Paul is not saying that the behavior of the strong at all times and in all circumstances can be held hostage by a single objection from the weak. The mere fact that someone disagrees with you or even that someone is offended by something you do does not make it a stumbling block in Paul's sense. So the question is, what does Paul mean by stumbling block? It's acting in such a way as to influence someone to act against their own conscience. It's when you exercise a freedom which they don't have.

And somehow, due to the time, the circumstances, the situation, it takes judgment to discern this. Somehow your exercise of that freedom pushes them to act in a similar way against the dictates of their own conscience. So why are Paul's warnings so severe? How can one person's exercise of their liberty lead to a brother being destroyed? Like he says in verse 15, It's important to keep in mind the implied sequence of events that Paul has in mind here in verses 13 and 15 and then later in verse 20.

The sequence goes something like this: the weaker brother sees the stronger brother or sister doing something that the stronger conscience permits but the weaker forbids. The weaker brother feels pressure to conform. Remember that in Rome, Jews were a minority in the city and the church. The vast majority didn't keep kosher. So the weaker brother then adopts the same practice against their own conscience.

And of course, they're accountable to God for that. But Paul's also saying, don't you contribute to that. Their conscience is throwing a red light at them inside but they ignore it. Like I warned about last week, at that point they're outsourcing their conscience. They're doing what they think is wrong because someone else thinks it's right.

When that happens, the integrity of their faith is seriously damaged. The connection between their convictions and and their actions is broken. They're searing and hardening their conscience. And if that process continues, it can undermine whatever faith they had. That's why Paul uses the language of being destroyed.

He's talking about someone's faith imploding. Those are the stakes here. To act against your own conscience can set in motion a chain reaction that dissolves whatever faith you had. To help us apply this point, I want to briefly dip into two scenarios that are closer to home than Sabbath and food laws. Scenario one, let's say you work for a large corporation and that company's corporate culture promotes sexual tolerance, diversity, and inclusion.

They celebrate a range of sexual identities and expressions. And so in a variety of ways, the company solicits employees endorsements of non-traditional gender expressions and sexual lifestyles.

In Romans 1:32, at the culmination of a list of ways people dishonor God, Paul says, Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. It is always a sin to approve what God disapproves. And in relation to other people, approving sin can be even more dangerous than committing sin because your approval explicitly says to them, this is a safe path, come walk in it.

So if you work for that company and you're trying to obey Romans 1:32, where do you draw the line? Here, I'd simply argue that one factor that goes into where you draw the line in practice should be considering other believers' consciences. Your conscience might draw a line in a different place from other believers, but you should be very slow to act in another way that some other believer might draw the conclusion that you approve of something you really don't. Because then they might think, oh, Steve's a Christian and he approves of this, so I guess I should too. And that is a path to apostasy.

Scenario 2: Let's say you work in political communications and you're uneasy with some of the things your boss wants you to say because you're not convinced they're all true. For instance, let's say your boss wants you to represent your political adversaries in ways that render them nearly unrecognizable. You should always heed your own conscience's warnings and limits And I would say Romans 14 to 15 teaches us in addition that one other factor is you should be careful not to lead another believer to compromise the truth by learning from your example. Be careful that by your example, you don't give any other believer a reason to value political power over the truth.

As a local church, the main way we should apply Paul's teaching here is by never doing anything as a church in our corporate gatherings that violates one another's consciences. Again, these issues came to a head, to a flash point in the Roman church when they came together and they had these fellowship meals. Paul's urging the strong to accommodate the weak in what they do together. He isn't saying that the strong can't eat meat at home, instead he's trying to bring about corporate gatherings that are safe for everyone's conscience. We'll talk more about that in just a moment.

Moving on to verses 16 to 18, Paul motivates us to protect other believers' consciences by reminding us to put more value on what matters more.

So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. Paul's saying another believer's perseverance is so much more important than your liberty to eat meat or not. He's saying that means more to God and it should mean more to you.

You don't have to eat, you're free not to eat, so in certain circumstances, give it up because you're convinced that this other believer's spiritual good, their very faith possibly being at stake, means more to you. To apply this principle, here are three great questions that the Anglican pastor, Vaughan Roberts, encourages us to ask based on the closely parallel passage of 1 Corinthians 8-10. If you want another case study in this and a case study that's occasioned by Christians' proximity to pagan culture, you know, here it's kind of the question of how Jewish do believers need to be? That's basically the question in Romans 14:14-15. In 1 Corinthians 8:10, it's a question of how pagan can they be?

Which is much more relevant to a lot of the pressures that a lot of us face. In any case, three questions from Vaughn Roberts on 1 Corinthians 8:10. Number one, what is the effect on other Christians? Love is more important than knowledge. Number two, what is the effect on non-Christians?

The gospel is more important than rights. Number three, what is the effect on my spiritual life? Spiritual health is more important than freedom.

Rounding out this section in verses 19 to 22, Paul returns to the danger of acting in a way that encourages someone else to go against their own conscience. He says, so then let us pursue what makes for peace and for for mutual upbuilding. Do not for the sake of food destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.

The faith that you have keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. The headline here is Pursue what Makes for Peace and Mutual Upbuilding in verse 19. What does that mean? It means there's a time to speak and a time to be silent.

It means when you do speak about a difference of conscience, do so in a way that recognizes the lordship of Christ, the good motives of the believer you disagree with, and that what unites you is more important than what divides you. It means caring more about the unity of the church than you do about getting your way or winning an argument. It means caring more about someone else's holiness than your freedom.

Point five, protect your own conscience by obeying it. In Romans 14:23, Paul distills a principle that informs his whole discussion: But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith; for, whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. In order for an action to be right for you, you have to be convinced it's right. Thinking something is right doesn't make it right. But thinking something is wrong does make it wrong.

Paul's point is that your actions can only please God if you are doing what you are convinced is God's will. That's why he uses the language of faith. You're convinced what you're doing is pleasing to God. You have to be convinced that you're doing what God requires or permits in order to keep a clear conscience. Conscience.

So protect your own conscience by obeying it. One massively important implication of this verse is that a local church should never require its members to do something Scripture doesn't require. A whole lot of deconstruction narratives start with pastors who wrongly impose unbiblical rules on churches. A whole lot of deconstruction narratives start with churches that require their members to do things Scripture doesn't require. Because then when someone comes to question that thing Scripture didn't require in the first place, they throw the whole thing out.

They don't do the disentangling because it came from the same authority, it came from the same place. Well, the church told me I had to do this and forget that. And poof, their faith's gone.

Churches should protect their members' consciences by requiring only what God does and by leaving room for different convictions and practices where God has not clearly bound us. A healthy church culture is one where both leaders and members know the difference between conviction and preference. And they know the difference between required and recommended. The difference between God's commands and what I may or may not think is a good idea. And it's also a culture where there's room for members to come to different convictions and to practice different convictions on matters where God's word doesn't give us a black and white rule.

Pastors should be exceedingly careful not to bind the consciences of church members with either a command or prohibition where Scripture doesn't give us one. Protecting the conscience protects Christian liberty, the freedom and joy to access God fully assured that we are forgiven by him. When you impose an unbiblical requirement, you tamper with that. You hinder believers from experiencing the joy and the assurance that they should. Protecting the conscience protects Christian liberty and protecting Christian liberty protects the gospel.

Anytime a church requires a practice that scripture doesn't require, they're in danger of implying that practice is necessary for salvation. And to teach that salvation comes through Christ plus anything is to deny the biblical gospel. Another necessary implication of Paul's teaching in Romans 14:23 has historically been known as the regulative principle of worship. That's a mouthful, but the regulative principle is simply the conviction that in their corporate gatherings, churches should perform only those elements of worship that are either explicitly commanded in Scripture or modeled by scriptural practice and precedent. In order to gather with the saints and then worship God from a clear conscience, you have to be convinced you're doing what he wants.

And in the church's corporate gatherings, you can only do that if the church is only doing what God requires us to do, what God has told us to do in his word. Here's how the Puritan William Perkins put that point, appealing to Mark 7:7. All things devised by man for the worship of God are flat sins. Because conscience cannot say of them that they please God. So we as elders of the church want to be extremely careful not to require anything of the church as a whole that not every member's conscience can assent to.

Take another look at the little conscience spectrum back on page 13. The left side, the boundary between prohibited and unwise. The boundary between that black part and the shaded part is the boundary between prohibited and permitted. My point there by shading it in is that there are some things that God's word does not explicitly prohibit but they sure seem like bad ideas.

And so, While you may not be prohibited from doing them, another believer or an elder might warn you, might discourage you from doing that. Now, when it comes to individual counsel, both members and elders need to keep a clear moat flowing between prohibited and permitted but maybe unwise. We need to feel that difference, abide by that difference, have that difference affect.

The kind of counsel we give to each other. If I think something is unwise, I might advise you not to do it. But unless God's commanding you not to do it, I can't command you not to do it. And I never mean to. So you need to get a feel for the difference between discouraging someone from doing something because it seems like it might not be the best idea, but is God binding the person's conscience in that area?

We have to tell the difference. Now, at some point, you might find your conscience out of accord with the standards or practices that govern a local church. In that case, joining another local church can be a legitimate pressure release valve for your conscience. If you think that God requires something of you that this church doesn't require, That could be a reason not to join this church. It could be a reason to leave and go join another church.

Or if you think that God prohibits something that this church permits, that could be a reason not to join or to join elsewhere. Notice I'm saying could be because Paul is seeing all kinds of possibility of living with differences about what is commanded or not. I'm not saying one of those disagreements means poof, you know, you have to find another church. I'm just saying that there can be a legitimate pressure release valve if your conscience is bothering you about something that seems to be kind of a standing issue. In Acts 15:35-39, we learned that there was a sharp disagreement between Paul and Barnabas.

So they separated and then they went on to lead separate mission efforts. They didn't denounce each other. They didn't pronounce each other to be false believers. They just decided that they could preserve unity better by working separately. Than by working together.

Not every division is a loss for unity. Sometimes having different local churches where different consciences can practice what they understand to be required can be a gain for unity. Whatever you do, protect your conscience by obeying it. Don't do anything your conscience tells you not to do because whatever does not come from faith is sin. Sixth point, very briefly, welcome others as Christ has welcomed you.

This is Paul's summary of his whole point in chapter 15, verses 1 to 7. Look with me at those verses.

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please Himself, but as it is written, the reproaches of those who reproached you fell on Me. For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you for the glory of God. There are abundant riches here that we will simply leave on the table in the interest of time. I will simply offer five brief comments on this glorious paragraph. First, the choice: Will you serve yourself or others? That's Paul's challenge to us in verse 1.

In the body of Christ we have obligations to each other. We owe each other care and concern. So will you prize others or please yourself? Second, the script: Paul cites a portion of Psalm 69, which we read earlier, showing us that Scripture foretells both Christ's humiliation and exaltation. Scripture traces the pattern of Christ's suffering, then glory.

If bearing with others' consciences calls for self-sacrifice, calls for endurance and humiliation, then recognize that you're reading the same lines Christ did. All of our paths have the same down then up shape that Christ's life did. The more you recognize that, the more encouragement and endurance you'll gain from studying Scripture. Third, the power. The power for this unity comes from God.

It's a supernatural unity and only a supernatural power can sustain it. This kind of unity that transcends all sorts of real weighty differences.

Is a supernatural gift of God's grace that can only be created by God and sustained by God. So pray for it like Paul does. Fourth, the goal. The goal is unity for unified worship. Paul's primary goal throughout this passage is the church's unity but that's not his ultimate goal.

Paul wants to bring about a unified church so that we can offer unified praise. Church unity exists for unified worship. The less unified we are, the harder it is to offer unified worship. The more our lives are in harmony, the truer will be the harmony when we come to sing and pray together. Fifth, finally, the model and motive.

It's Christ's welcome of you. Verse 7 here really is the whole passage in a nutshell. Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you for the glory of God. Notice Paul doesn't say grudgingly tolerate. He doesn't say put up with from a distance while rolling your eyes.

He says, Welcome. And the standard of welcome is the welcome that Christ has given you. How Christ has treated you is how you are to treat every other church member. If Christ has borne the full weight of your sins, you can bear the difficulty of lovingly bearing with someone else's different conscience. The way to bear with others is to remember what Christ bore for you.

The way to grow in serving others is to remember what Christ gave up in order to serve you. The way to endure through disagreement is to remember what Christ endured for you. All praise to him who humbly came to bear our sorrow, sin, and shame. Let's pray.

Heavenly Father, we thank you for welcoming us through your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. And we pray that we would welcome one another as we've been welcomed. In Jesus' name, Amen.