Waynesboro Church Of Christ
Welcomes You!
Here are some articles and sermon outlines you may find interesting. Click on any title for the full text.
28United In Christ: A Biblical Model for Community in the Church
August 27, 2007
The Stone-Campbell Movement was anchored on two pillars of emphases: the desire to restore the pattern of the New Testament church and the desire to restore unity in the fragmented denominational landscape. Because of these seemingly contradictory goals, the pursuit of unity within the movement has had a tumultuous journey. The church began as a movement based on unity, but the restoration stream of thought has certainly diverged from one another. There exist three major groupings within the Stone-Campbell Movement today: The Disciples of Christ, The Christian Church, and the churches of Christ. These major groups all have sub-groups incorporated in their fellowships. Michael Armour states “the twentieth century saw something like 20 recognizable lines of division emerge in our ranks” (87). This quote is in reference to the churches of Christ fellowship. The fellowship of the churches of Christ has neglected the Biblical plea for unity by overemphasizing patternism. Proof of this is found in the proliferation of division within the non-instrumental congregations. John L. Edwards cites twenty-seven factions in the Restoration Movement, with the majority of them belonging to the churches of Christ (91). Other streams of the Restoration Movement divided, but we within the churches of Christ have broken fellowship at an alarming rate. Paul Pollard notes “for all practical purposes (churches of Christ) have given up on unity and stress restoration instead…Those who write about unity, are held as suspect by certain right-wing elements of the church….” (139). Another example is Goebel Music’s book “Behold the Pattern.” It claims in the Preface “There was a time in the ‘restoration movement’ when the New Testament pattern was stressed with much more emphasis than it is being stressed, brotherhood-wide, today” (V). The rampant splintering of fellowship must be held in check because of the Biblical necessity for unity in Christ.
Throughout the decades, there have been movements for unity within the churches of Christ. A renewed interest in unity was spurred by the one hundred year anniversary of the 1906 Consensus report marking the official split between the Disciples of Christ/Christian Church and the churches of Christ (Atchley and Russell 30-31). These festivities or digressive actions seemed to polarize members and institutions within the fellowship. For instance, Freed-Hardeman University refused to participate in the mission’s forum at Lubbock University because there was a Christian Church minister preaching. The Freed-Hardeman University withdrew fellowship from a sister university because of this doctrinal disagreement. One would not be shocked at this action because of the developing polarization within the church. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, journals like “Image” and “Wineskins” advocated increased reflection on unity concerns. But in reaction to these attempts at reconciliation, other journals sought to stop the influence of unity concerns. These journals were “Contending for the Faith,” “The Spiritual Sword,” and “Firm Foundation” (Shelburne 90). These journals seemed to be competing over the proper emphasis of patternism and the desire for unity (Foster 82). The two pillars of restoration thought have remained in tension for over two hundred years (Sanders 22).
With the desire to balance the two pillars of Stone-Campbell emphasis: pattern of truth—unity of believers, this paper will seek to present a Biblical model of unity in Christ without becoming polemic. This difficult task will be accomplished by presenting the Biblical mandate for unity, then presenting the attitudinal and doctrinal basis for unity—Ephesians 4.1-6, and finally presenting the approved compromises for unity—Romans 14.1 to 15.13. The paper will certainly not present a “Jesus Only” basis for unity or a “conformity pattern” for unity. True Biblical unity, not union, is discovered through truth and forbearance.
Biblical Mandate for Unity
Ephesians 4.3 states “being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” One of the important aspects of the church’s mission within the world is to demonstrate unity. During the priestly prayer of Jesus in the Garden before his certain death, Jesus uttered these memorable words:
I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me’ (John 17. 20-23).
In this prayer, the unity of the Trinity is held as the standard of togetherness. The goal of Christians is to be united as one as the Godhead is one. The purpose of Christian unity is to draw the unbelieving world to the cross. There are several clear statements concerning unity that emerge from this text. (1) Unity with each other begins in Christ and the Apostles’ word. The mention of “their word” is not a reference to the entirety of Christian doctrine, rather a mention of the “Word,” Jesus Christ (John 1.1-2). It was Jesus himself that is mediated through the witness of the Apostles (Keener 1061). (2) Unity among believers is modeled by the unity between the Father and the Son. (3) Unity is not something that is initiated by the Christian but by God, but the believer participates in maintaining the togetherness. (4) Unity is not described in terms of an institution, organization, or social grouping, but some type of community is assumed. (5) Unity exists in diversity since the Father and the Son are one, but each displays individual characteristics. (6) Unity is visibly displayed because the world must recognize it. This condition of unity runs counter to the unity in diversity or unity within the universal church that denominationalism subscribes to. The unity must be observable, not a hunting of the lowest common denominator, but a full embrace of demonstrating unity in front of the world (Carson 568). The system of denominationalism falls drastically below this standard for Biblical unity. Biblical unity is highly visible before the unbelieving world. (7) Unity is for the purpose of teaching the world that Jesus was sent by the Father. (8) Unity has two levels: unity with fellow believers and unity with Jesus. Neither level of unity is possible without the other (Pollard 133-34).
John 17 can beget two extremes. One extreme is unity at any cost and the other extreme is unity at attainment of full truth. There is a condition to unity, which is establishing a relationship with Lord Jesus. Others believers are commanded to maintain unity with those that are Christians. The breaking of unity with another believer is done only in severe circumstances (1 Cor. 6). The thinking of Thomas B. Warren, who places knowledge of the truth above the Biblical necessity of unity, truth and unity are balanced with one another. One cannot place unity above truth or truth above unity. Warren states “all men must realize that the need for truth is logically prior to the need for unity” (177). In a sense, Warren is correct; the truth is that Jesus must precede unity, but one cannot carry this logical flow too far. Neal Pollard makes this mistake that Warren is advocating. He states “following God’s pattern for unity is a condition of unity” (227). There is a pattern that the pre-Christian must follow to obtain unity, but this pattern is the narrative of salvation. One can mistakenly interpret the pattern of securing unity as conformity to written or un-written creeds. For once unity is established, each pillar of truth and unity must be equally represented.
Since unity is incredibly important to the vibrancy of the New Testament church, Paul writes an urgent appeal to the splintered Corinthian congregation:
Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1.10-13)
The Corinthian congregation was struggling with following personalities instead of Christ. There was a party attitude among the members. The individual Christians were denominating themselves from one another. Paul calls the people back to the original sense of unity that was established with their conversion to Christ. The term “complete” or “united” carries the idea of restoration to a prior condition, or a putting in order of something that has fallen into disarray (Hays 21). Hence Paul is reminding the people that unity is derived from the cross of Christ. It was the crucifixion and believers’ response to it that accomplished the unity of believers. The experience of salvation in Christ argues against division; taking on a name to designate one person from another individual takes away the supremacy of Christ (Ferguson 400). Unity is established in conversion, and man’s part is to maintain fellowship with all members of the kingdom of God by holding to the divine work of Christ and rejecting following the precedents of man (Hawley 75).
Some within the fellowship have used this verse to appeal to excess doctrinal conformity (Hicks 54). They argue that unity must be based on agreement on all supposed salvation issues. But by taking this stance, the people are advocating what Paul is condemning—lining up behind interpreters and not the Word. Unity is not found in following man’s interpretations but in centering unity on the work of Christ on the cross.
Biblical unity is formed when an unbeliever becomes saved through the blood of Christ which is connected through water baptism (Rom. 6.3-4). Once the unity is established, every Christian is called to maintain this togetherness for the edification of the world. But how is this done?
The Attitudinal and Doctrinal Basis for Unity
The typical methodology for establishing unity in doctrine has been an appeal to unite on salvation issues and allow differences on optional issues. The much quoted slogan of the Stone-Campbell Movement, “In faith unity, in opinions liberty, and in all things charity,” has particular challenges. The difficulty has to do with distinguishing a matter of faith from a matter of opinion. There are few brothers and sisters in Christ that agree completely on what is faith and what is opinion. The early restoration leaders attempted to distinguish faith and opinion by whether the Bible explicitly or implicitly taught a doctrine. If explicit, it was a binding doctrine for unity, and if implicit, it was a doctrine of opinion not affecting unity. Then, this well-intentioned hermeneutic was changed to a system that placed implicit teachings on the same level as explicit commands. Thomas B. Warren states “What the New Testament implies is bound on men living today, not because any man has inferred what the New Testament implies, but because God has implied it” (60). Warren changed the hermeneutic to include every doctrine that man felt was inferred by God through logical reasoning. The problem is that Warren is correct in one sense. What the Bible implies is bound on man today because no command in the Bible is explicitly written to men in this century. The Bible never says “Matthew Morine must believe in the Lord.” But Warren is incorrect in exalting human reasoning to the same plateau as clearly stated truth. Instead of arguing over explicit or implicit commands, one should let Paul define the doctrines of unity (Shelly 90-91).
Paul defines unity in Ephesians 4:1-6. In this section he provides some attitudes and doctrines for unity.
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.
The beginning of unity is right attitudes. Paul deals with the mind of the man before tackling the intellect. In verse 1, Paul admonishes the Christians to walk worthy of the call to unity. Paul is building the case with two prepositional phrases and two participial phrases which function as imperatives. These exhortations lead in an ascending line to the goal of preserving the unity of the spirit (O’Brien 276). This is done by practicing the virtues of humility, gentleness, patience, and forbearing in love. The first two virtues of humility and gentleness are closely related. Humility points to complete dependence on God. Though this virtue was despised in the ancient world, Paul exalts it because of the example of Christ (Phil. 2.1-9). The actions of Christ were in stark contrast to the ancient world’s custom of behavior. Gentleness suggests strength under control, not a sense of weakness, but rather the ability to produce patience, quiet restraint, and submission to the rule of God (Dockery 79-80). Gentleness connotes a “willingness to waive one’s rights that come from seeking the common good without being concerned for personal reputation or gain” (Lincoln 236). The term “patience” literally means “long temper,” which calls to mind a sense of steadfastness or forbearance. It is the ability to lovingly look past another’s shortcomings. These are qualities for harmonious communities (Lincoln 236). If unity is ever to be attained, humility, gentleness and patience must pervade a man’s mind. Finally, in Paul’s list of virtues for unity, he mentions forbearance in love. The love that is mentioned in the text is referring to brotherly love among Christians. Love is the guiding attribute for unity. Love does not exist in this verse in the sense of individual emotion, but rather love within a community. Love is practiced through personal relationships in the church (Barth 427-28).
Paul is arguing that unity is found first through proper attitudes and virtues. To Paul, the beginning of unity is found through character. Paul does not begin his treatises on unity by emphasizing doctrine, but a Christian’s virtues. A survey of recent lectureship books produced by members of the church quickly proves that doctrine is the starting ground for unity (The Bible Doctrine of Unity, edited by Neal Pollard and Christian Fellowship, edited by Michael Hatcher). This methodology is opposed to the Biblical mandate established by the Holy Spirit. When there is teaching on the Christian’s attitude concerning unity, there seems to be backtracking on the text. No one wants to exalt love, compassion, and kindness. Wherever the virtues are addressed, quickly these virtues become conditional (Bailey 152, Light 59-61). Any discussion of unity must be preceded by conformity to the Christian virtues of kindness, gentleness, patience, and forbearance in love. Paul takes this same approach to unity in the Philippians letter. Paul begins with correct attitudes before dealing with doctrinal concerns.
If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others (Phil. 2.1-4).
Paul does address the doctrinal basis for unity in Ephesians 4:4-6. This section is usually called the “seven ones.” There is no unity found in complete conformity, but in a unity in diversity because Christian unity is based on the Trinity. The Trinity is completely unified but allows for unique characteristics (Doyle 246-47). But diversity in unity can only go so far. There have to be some non-negotiable aspects. Paul provides these never-compromised truths, when he breaks the flow of thought through an abrupt technique. In verse 4, there is no connecting particle. This absence of the particle causes the seven ones to be more vivid and impressive (Abbott 107-8). Paul is emphatically reminding the readers that these core truths cannot be compromised.
Paul begins by reminding all Christians that there is “one body.” On other occasions the “body” is referring to the church (Eph. 1. 22-23; Col. 1.18, 24). This body incorporates all Christians. Paul is demonstrating the oneness of the church (Matt. 16.18). Christ did not establish a multiplicity of churches, but one church to which all believers belong. Everyone who has been saved has been added to this one body (Acts 2:47). Once an individual has been added to the body, every member has the responsibility to maintain the bond of unity with him or her. In the next phrase, Paul mentions the Spirit, as a reference to the Holy Spirit. Paul includes all three members of the Godhead. He writes that there is one spirit, one Lord, and one Father. Paul does not mention that one must be in agreement on every aspect of the Holy Spirit, such as how the Spirit operates in a Christian, but clearly mentions that there must be understanding that there is the Spirit from God and this Spirit resides in the church (1 Cor. 3.16). Also Paul mentions the “one Lord.” This is a reference to Jesus Christ. Salvation is found through Christ alone. For unity to exist among Christians there must be a basic understanding of the divinity of Christ. There has to be orthodoxy concerning the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Essentially, Jesus must be seen as the divine-human Son of God (1 Cor. 15.1-4; 2 John 9). Finally, in addressing the Trinity, Paul includes the “one father.” God the Father is the connecting point between the Old and New Testament. All believers are united within the family of God whose Father is God. Probably, Paul has the Jewish Shema in mind (Snodgrass 199). The Shema is the quotation of Deuteronomy 6:4 which professes that Yahweh is one. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” In particular, the Jews and the Gentiles are in view in these texts, but both nationalities can unite on the supremacy of the Trinity.
In Ephesians 4.4, Paul mentions the “one hope.” This “hope” can be defined as “eager expectation of the outworking of God’s plan” (Hoehner 515). The hope is the expectation of the promise that some day Christians will be seated with Christ in the heavenly realm. This “hope” is a secure commitment by God to His children. All believers are united through this promise of eternal life. It is a reminder to “maintain the bond of unity” because some day all Christians will dwell with one another for eternity.
The next “one” is more difficult to define. Paul mentions “one faith” in Ephesians 4.5. The debate over this term is significant because some desire to include all aspects of Christian doctrine within the term. Those that do will refer to Jude 3: “Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” The dispute boils down to whether the “one faith” refers to an objective faith—referring to the body of truth, as pijstiV is seen in Jude 3, or the subjective faith which is exercised by all Christians in Christ as seen in Colossians 2.7 “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.” Hoehner suggests that the subjective faith is the most commonly used in the New Testament (517). Paul mentions the subjective faith in Romans 3.30 “since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.” Paul praises the Ephesians for expressing their faith in the Lord Jesus in 1.13-15:
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you, and your love for all the saints.
According to Peter O’Brien, the “one faith” is objective. He argues the “one faith” is referring to the unity that both Jews and Gentiles have in the one faith. There is not a unique gospel for the Jews and another gospel for the Gentiles. They are both united in the one system of faith. He refers to Romans 3:20 for proof: “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (283). Neale Pryor certainly sees the “one faith” as objective because he includes the entire body of belief in his discussion on the essentials of faith. Pryor argues that the “one faith” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5 deals with women’s roles, instrumental music, and marriage and divorce issues. For Pryor, the “one faith” catches every New Testament doctrine (35-38). Andrew Lincoln casts a more unified vision of the “one faith” in seemingly arguing both sides. He states that the “one faith” refers to the baptismal confession of Jesus as Lord, which would make the “one faith” objective in nature. But also, the “one faith” can be subjective because of the unifying act of believing with one another on Christ. Paul seems to use both objective faith and subjective faith in the same verse, interchanging one with another (239). “And He gave some… for the equipping of the saints… building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4. 11-13). In this verse Paul refers to the unity of the common faith (believing with one another) and then to the substance of belief—the Son of God. So instead of making the “one faith” either/or, Paul probably had a both/and intention with the verse (Dockery 81).
One must be careful to not overextent the objective nature of the “one faith.” Paul is not including every doctrine in the Christian’s faith. In context, the objective nature of the “one faith” refers to the seven ones of Ephesians 4:4-6. People will refer to 2 John 9 “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.” People place the “one faith” and “doctrine of Christ” on the same level, thinking that both refer to the collective body of Christian doctrine (Warren 169, Miller 301). The expression “doctrine of Christ” has been taken to mean the entirety of Christian doctrine, a structure known in Greek as the subjective genitive. Or, the “doctrine of Christ” can refer to the single doctrine about Christ, which is the objective genitive, which connotes that some were denying, namely, that Christ had come in the flesh.” The phrase “doctrine of Christ” is referring to the teaching about Christ’s incarnation. The reason for believing that the phrase is in the objective genitive and therefore rendered “the doctrine about Christ” is because of verse seven in the context. In verse seven, John gives the erroneous doctrine that the false teachers were promoting. This false teaching was that the deceivers did “not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” Also, there are parallel verses in 1 John that are discussing the doctrine of Christ’s incarnation. They state, “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also” (I John 2:22-23). Another argument to prove that John is writing about the teaching of Christ’s incarnation is the historical background of the text. In the time of John’s writing, the teachings of the Docetics and the Gnostics were influential, and it would seem strange for John to make a sweeping statement that would include the entirety of all of Christian teaching when in reality he was only addressing the false teachings of the Docetics and the Gnostics. Both the “one faith” and the “doctrine of Christ” must be interpreted in context to see the scope that these verses are incorporating.
Finally, the last one of the seven ones that has to be dealt with is the “one baptism.” There are three major positions concerning the one baptism. The most common view is that “one baptism” refers to water baptism. But there are some that disagree because of the divisive nature of baptism through the centuries (Hoehner 517). This seems to be a weak argument because the identity of Christ has been divisive also, but most would not reject Jesus as one of the seven ones. Another view is regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This interpretation should be rejected because there is nothing in the broader context to indicate this usage. Also, Holy Spirit baptism is not a unifying element of the Christian’s life. There are only two accounts of Holy Spirit baptism in the Bible (Acts 2—the Apostles; Acts 10—Cornelius). This one baptism must be something that all Christians can experience as one. Finally, the last explanation is reading the “one baptism” in a metaphorical sense. Hoehner argues that the “one baptism” is a baptism into the death of Christ. He cites Romans 6.1-11 and Mark 10.38. This seems to be dividing symbols. It seems needless to divide water baptism from metaphorical baptism. When a person is baptized in water, he or she is symbolically participating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. According to Biblical interpretation, it seems unreasonable to change a literal action into simply metaphorical action, especially since the early Christians practiced the literal actions (Acts 2.38). The best explanation for the “one baptism” is water baptism. This was the early practice of first century Christians (Acts 8.16, 35-9; 19.5; 1 Cor. 1. 13-15). Even Vorster admits that the “one baptism” connects to the great commission of Jesus for the early patristic fathers. Only with the passing of time did the “one baptism” begin to change (295). Since Paul is writing early in Christian history, more than likely he has water baptism in mind in Ephesians 4:5.
Ephesians 4:1-6 provides the right attitudes and the right doctrines for unity. If the congregation will follow these instructions, then the congregation will “all attain to the unity of the faith.”
Approved Compromises for Unity
Any discussion of Biblical unity would not be complete without applying Romans 14.1 to 15.13 to the issue. This section is made up of three predominate thoughts. Romans 14.1-12 deal with unrighteous judgment; Romans 14.13-23 discusses the idea of avoiding becoming a stumbling block; and Romans 15.1-13 addresses the example of Christ in unity.
Romans 14.1-12. Before the text can be interpreted, the identity of the “weak and the strong” must be discussed. More than likely, the weak are Jewish Christians that consider observance of the dietary laws and observance of the holy days to be essential to Christianity. This group had difficulty withdrawing from obedience to the Jewish customs (Moo 447). The group labeled the “strong” could be Gentile Christians who have come to Christ apart from the Jewish customs. These Christians have become boastful in faith by looking down on those weaker Christians. Overall, the instructions of these verses are to the community at Rome in general. Rarely is a congregation made up of only weak Christians and strong Christians. Possibly, there was a large segment of Christians that were neutral on these issues. Paul in Romans 14.1-15.6 only uses ten out of twenty-eight verses to specifically address the “weak and strong”. Paul was giving his instructions to the entire community of faith. Instead of exalting the issues of disagreement, he addresses the community in how to maintain its unity despite differences of opinion (Karris 172). Sometimes, unity is not maintained through the polarization of each side of a particular issue, but by those who are properly balanced in perspective. The community of God at large in Rome is responsible for maintaining unity.
The specific instructions in Romans 14.1-12 are dealing with inappropriate judgment. In this section, Paul provides a balanced treatment on how each group is to treat the other. The “weak” were to accept those who are “strong” into full fellowship and not cast judgment on their liberty (Nanos 146), while the “strong” were to refrain from judging the faith of the “weak.” In verses 3 and 10, the word “contempt” is ejxouqenevw, which means “scornful rejection of another from a position of perceived superiority” (Esler 350). Both groups are to refrain from judging one another because Christ is the ultimate judge. Notice that the “weak” group is not given the instructions to grow in faith to become more like the “strong” group. Those that are “strong” are to accept fully the “weak”. Susan Miller provides some helpful advice in mentioning “those Christians who believe themselves to be strong in the faith believe that it is their personal responsibility and duty to enlighten others on what they believe is the correct interpretation of truth” (Miller 105). There is certainly a time to inform weaker Christians, but many times they should be offered acceptance and not judgment.
Romans 14.13-23. Romans 14.13-23 builds on Paul’s previous argument concerning drawing various judgments against one another by pointing out the particular consequences which can occur if inappropriate judgment in the community is allowed to prevail over God’s deeper judgment and tolerance (McCruden 237). The major thought of this section is refraining from becoming a stumbling block for your brother’s faith. The provscomma “is an obstacle in the way; when the foot strikes it, the person stumbles. The scavndalon refers strictly to the bait stick of a trap; when an animal or bird strikes it, these trigger off the mechanism that produces entrapment” (Morris 486). Instead of seeing “stumbling block and obstacle” as synonyms, one can see how the first is referring to an accidental stumbling while the other term could denote a stumbling through the intention of another. Some of the Christians in Rome could have been showcasing their liberty in Christ. Christians are not independent of one another but interdependent. Paul provides some specific instructions concerning eating and drinking in order not to cause a brother in Christ to stumble. In every activity that a Christian does, he must be aware of the influence of his actions. If a Christian has a particular view that is controversial or actions that are ethically challenging, Paul provides the advice to keep these actions and attitudes to himself or herself.
Romans 15:1-13. Paul turns to the example of Christ in his plea for unity among the Jews and Gentiles. The highlighting thought in the context is that Jesus did not please Himself. In the process of maintaining unity, the idea of self-sacrifice must prevail. The “strong” are to bear the “weak” in the faith. For a member of the body of Christ to push for his own way to the detriment of others is opposing the example and mindset of Christ (Phil. 2:1-5). In a multi-cultural church, there is room for all, but all have to behave responsibly for unity to be achieved.
Romans 14.1-15.13 are an exposition for allowing compromise in the body of Christ. Not everyone must believe the same for unity to be accomplished. But everyone must be united on proper behavior in reference to taking care of his or her brother or sister in the Lord. Those that are stronger in faith are given the duty to forbear weaker Christians, and weaker Christians are commanded to accept the stronger Christians. Everyone must be careful of enacting judgment on another because what one considers a “salvation issue” may not be considered a salvation issue to God. Unfortunately, some opinion issues are turned into salvation issues because of ignorance and mean-spiritedness. But in this context, Paul is dealing with issues of opinion and not salvation issues (Talbert 321). This text teaches that forbearance and refraining from judgment is essential for Christian unity. Conduct is as important as doctrine in maintaining the bond of unity in the church. Both attitude and truth are essential in unity in Christ.
Conclusion
The issues of unity within the body of believers are essential themes throughout the New Testament. Jesus has called on Christians to be united in the spirit for the conversion of the world. But unity is larger than pseudo-unity through expressing the name Jesus Christ because Paul bases unity in the seven ones that cannot be compromised. But in areas where there are differences of opinions, Paul admonishes all Christians to refuse needless judgments of one another and to follow the example of Christ in denying self for the betterment of the community of God.
Works Cited
Armour, Michael C. “Unity in the Churches of Christ: An Historical Perspective.” Mid-Stream 40
(2001) : 87-95.
Atchley, Rick and Bob Russell. Together Again: Restoring Unity in Christ after a Century of
Separation. Abilene: Leafwood, 2006.
Bailey, M. Floyd, Jr. “Brotherly Love.” The Bible Doctrine of Unity. Ed. Neal Pollard and Greg Elliot.
Pulaski: Sain Publications, 1997. 151-154.
Barth, Markus. Ephesians. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1974.
Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991.
Davis, Stark, J. All as One: A Bible-Based Approach to Christian Unity. Fort Worth: Star Bible
Publications, 1995.
Dockery, David S. “Ephesians 4:1-6.” Review and Expositor 88 (1991) : 79-82.
Doyle, Eric. “The Essential Unity of the Church: Some Consequences for Ecumenism.” The Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 20 (1983) : 245-256.
Edwards, John L. Unity at the Cross or a House Divided: A Plea for Unity in the Restoration
Movement. NA. Self-Published, ND.
Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2003.
Ferguson, Everett. The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996.
Foster, Douglas A. Will the Cycle be Unbroken: Churches of Christ Face the 21st Century. Abilene:
ACU Press, 1994.
Hawley, Monroe. Is Christ Divided? A Study of Sectarianism. West Monroe: Howard Publishing,
1992.
Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997.
Hicks, Olan. What if We Disagree? Searcy: Gospel Enterprises, 1994.
Hoehner, Harold. Ephesians. An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.
Karris, Robert J. “Romans 14:1-15:13, and the Occasion of Romans.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37
(1973) : 155-178.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003.
Light, Michael. “Love, Compassion, and Fellowship.” Christians Fellowship. Ed. Michael Hatcher.
Pensacola: Bellview Church of Christ, 1998. 57-68.
Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1990.
Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1996.
McCruden, Kevin B. “Judgment and Life for the Lord: Occasion and Theology of Romans 14,1-
15,13.” Biblica 86 (2005) : 229-244.
Miller, Dave. Piloting the Strait. Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications, 1996.
Miller, Susan. “Romans 14:1-15:7: Unity in the Essentials, Opinions in the Non-Essentials, Charity in
Everything.” Review and Expositor 95 (1998) :103-108.
Moo, Douglas J. Romans. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988.
Music, Goebel. Behold the Pattern. Colleyville: Goebel Music Publications, 1991.
O’ Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999.
Pollard, Paul. “Unity Christology in John’s Gospel.” Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell
Movement 2. Ed. William R. Baker. Abilene: ACU Press, 2006. 119-142.
Pollard, Neal. “John 17.” The Bible Doctrine of Unity. Ed. Neal Pollard and Greg Elliot. Pulaski: Sain
Publications, 1997. 220-237
Pryor, Neale T. “The Essentials of the Faith.” Church Unity: Stability and Flexibility in the Church.
Ed. Donald Kinder. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1995. 33-42.
Sanders, Phil. “Can’t We All Just Be Christians?” Seeking True Unity. Nashville: CDH Classic
Printing, 2006. 17-23.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1998.
Shelburnce, Ian. “Piecemakers to Peacemakers: The Transformed Ministries of W. Carl Ketcherside
and J. Ervin Waters.” Discipliana 57 (1997) : 80-95.
Shelly, Rubel. I Just Want to be a Christian. Nashville: 20th Century Christian, 1984.
Snodgrass, Klyne. Ephesians. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Talbert, Charles H. Romans. Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth and Helwys,
2002.
Vorster, Hans. “We Confess One Baptism for the Remission of Sins: New Impulses for the
Ecumenical Discussion of Baptism.” Ecumenical Review 51 (Jul 1999) : 294-303.
Warren, Thomas B. The Bible Only Makes Christians Only and the Only Christians. Jonesboro:
National Christian Press, 1986.
.