The Strong and the Sensitive: A Christian Perspective on Opinions

Introduction

Paul wrapped up his lengthy explanation of the Christian commitment to love others and love your neighbor with this focused application of the Christian “love principle:” that to love one another is to fulfill the law, and to love one another by fulfilling the law is to walk in the light.

Paul has summarized Christian ethics in those three ways then: love others, fulfill the Law, walk in the light.

Paul now turns his attention to a very specific situation, though one that was not entirely uncommon in the early church. What is amazing about this situation is that it is an eternal and exceedingly common scenario, and one that every church for the last 2000 years has dealt with, whether they know it or not.

While moving his specific focus in this chapter, it’s important to note that Paul maintains his primary theme and guiding principle from chapter 12 and chapter 13 - love your neighbor as yourself.

Paul deals here with what theologians have called the weaker brother principle, and what Paul has to say here is deeply relevant for Christians in all ages, and certainly Christians today, and even for our own church.

With that being said, let’s get into the text.

Thesis - Welcome the Weaker Brother - 14:1

Paul gives his thesis statement in verse 1. This sets the tone for the whole chapter.

He gives a contrast between a positive command and a negative command.

What is the positive command?

Accept the one who is weak in faith.

Now before we discuss the command to accept, let’s ask the question: what is implied or assumed by this statement, “the one who is weak in faith?” In other words, what do we learn about the nature of the church and the types of people that are part of it?

We see that Paul implies or assumes that there are Christians who are weaker and Christians who are stronger.

What does Paul not imply or assume, however?

That weaker Christians are inferior or lesser in any way.

There’s something here for us then, and we will dig deeper into this as we go.

We need to recognize and acknowledge the existence of weaker Christians in our midst. Paul will go on to explain this in more depth, but at this point we need to realize that people in this very room have varying convictions and varying mental toughness as regards the truths of Scripture and the promises of God. Paul will teach us over the next few verses how we are to think and act toward them, but for now we need to recognize that weaker brothers exist and that there are varying levels of strength and weakness in the body of Christ.

Knowing that weaker brothers and sisters exist in our midst, we have a responsibility to them, to accept them or receive them. In other words, there is to be no discrimination in respect of confidence, esteem, and affection, as John Murray put it. These weaker brothers are to be received with gladness and with equal dignity to those who are stronger. Likewise David Peterson points out that a careful parsing of that verb accept yields a reading more along the lines of extend a warm welcome to, and I think I like that turn of phrase better. Now welcome the one who is weak in faith. Paul will get into the reasoning behind this later.

Now moving on to the second part of the verse, what is the negative part of the command? What are we not to do?

We are not to pass judgment or quarrel over opinions or secondary matters.

Paul forbids quarreling over secondary matters and personal opinions. We are not to welcome others into our fellowship with the intention of arguing with them over secondary matters of opinion. How sorely we have lost sight of this in so many of our churches today.

Far too often churches, especially small ones, are marked by a dogged adherence to deeply specific personal opinions, and that adherence typically gets projected onto others, to the point where people get told “You don’t share our opinions, so get on out of here!” Newsflash: if you’re kicking someone out of your church over a difference of opinion, you’ve missed the boat on Biblical Christianity.

Now let me be clear here: this verse has been abused to allow all kinds of theologically errant teaching and unethical behavior to enter the church. We have to be care as we think about these things to distinguish between critical first order doctrines and practices and what Paul labels here opinions. Many professing Christians, especially those of the progressive flavor, love to label everything an opinion. They’ll say that a Biblical definition of marriage is an opinion, affirming the deity of Christ is an opinion, condemning homosexuality is an opinion, and the list goes on and on. Their line of reason goes something like this: we all want to get along and be peaceful and not quarrel, so we’re going to not talk about our opinions on these things.

This is not what Paul is commanding here. Paul has elsewhere demonstrated amply that there are certain theological and ethical principles that cannot be compromised. But likewise, there are just as many that are opinions and not dogmas, and therefore should not be quarreled over.

Paul moves on to explain what he means by this with an example situation, followed by a principle and the theological rationale that underpins the principles.

Example situation #1 - Food - 14:2

This first example situation has to do with food. Paul contrasts the two categories of Christians: one brother who has faith that he may eat all things, and the other brother named Zach who is weak and only eats vegetables.

There’s an interesting cultural observation to be made here that will help us understand what prompts Paul to use this scenario as an example.

There could be two things going on here, and they may both be going on at the same time.

The first option on the food question is that Paul could be dealing with Jewish Christians in Rome who are concerned with keeping the Old Testament “kosher laws.” What makes meat kosher for a Jew is if the blood is drained properly according to the guidelines set out specifically in Leviticus. Those guidelines indicated that blood was never to be consumed by God’s people because the life of a thing is in the blood, and that blood is what makes atonement for sins and is therefore sacred. Gentile meat markets in Rome wouldn’t have known anything about kosher laws regarding meat, let alone applied them in their butchering practices, so for many Jewish Christians, their only option may have been to just be a vegetarian because they can’t be certain of the kosher-ness of the meat sold at a regular Roman meat market.

The second option is that much of the meat sold at markets in pagan Gentile areas was recycled from pagan sacrificial rituals to false gods and demons. What would happen is, the animal would be slaughtered in a worship ritual, and then the meat would be butchered and sold, often right off the sacrificial altar in a pagan temple. The problem with this for Gentile Christians is that many of them were likely saved out of that false and pagan worship. So for them, disassociating the meat from the pagan worship may have been very hard or impossible, especially for younger or newer Christians.

This is likely why Paul brings up the food issue, as opposed to any other matter of conscience or opinion that he could have discussed.

This example helps us qualify matters of opinion and conscience in our own day.

First, Paul is clear that food is not an ethical issue. This helps us qualify the types of issues that should be considered secondary or matters of personal opinion. Food falls within that category of items that the Scriptures do not give specific instruction on. We might call them gray areas. Yes, the Old Testament prescribed dietary laws, but their true purpose was to teach Israel and us about who God is and who we ought to be as a holy people. The Lord demonstrated to Peter in Acts 10 that all food is considered clean under the new covenant. So whatever dietary restrictions you want to impose upon yourself become just that, a matter of personal conviction. We are not to interfere or quarrel or argue with convictions of this type, but are rather to welcome those who hold them with open arms of love.

Out of this example, Paul gives an ethical principle in verse 3:

Ethical principle #1 - Do not judge - 14:3

In view of differences of opinions and differences of conviction, what does Paul now forbid here? Two things:

Viewing with contempt. This word has a limited but rich usage in the New Testament. In the Greek it is exoutheneito, and here it is translated view with contempt. Probably the most vivid example of this type of behavior or treatment of others that we have in the New Testament is in Luke 23 where Luke uses the word to describe the Jews’ treatment of Jesus in the hours leading up to his crucifixion, telling us that they treated him with contempt and mocked him.

This is the type of behavior Paul forbids to take place in the church over opinions and differences of conviction.

Judging. Christians get this word wrong all the time and it drives me nuts. To judge is to discern or differentiate between moral right and moral wrong. You might say it is to issue a moral edict of some kind. What Paul means here by judging is imposing your own opinions and convictions on someone else, telling someone they have to do or believe something secondary just because you do it or believe it.

So let’s build a bridge here. Paul is commanding Rome and by extension us to not view one another with contempt and not judge one another over secondary matters. What are those things for us today?

Let’s discuss some doctrinal things first:

Church government and polity. I believe this is a secondary issue and a matter of opinion. You might believe in congregational rule. Great, there is Biblical evidence for that model. You might believe in elder rule. Also great, there is Biblical evidence for that model. You might believe in church-by-church independence and autonomy. No problem. You might believe that churches ought to be part of a larger ruling body like a synod or diocese. Also no problem. Church government is a secondary matter because it doesn’t directly concern our doctrine of God, our doctrine of Christ, or our doctrine of salvation. Therefore there is latitude here for a difference of beliefs and Paul says we ought to be quick to welcome those who might differences in this area.

Baptism. Baptism is a secondary issue and a matter of opinion. That might rub some folks the wrong way, but it is true. For most of the last 2000 years, historically orthodox, Bible believing Christians have baptized infants in continuity with the Old Testament practice of circumcision. We don’t do that at this church, but there are plenty of faithful churches that do, and there are theologically informed and Biblically rational arguments to be made on both sides of the aisle on this. Do we welcome one another as brothers and sisters even when we have differences on baptism?

Eschatology. Eschatology or the doctrine of the end times is a matter of opinion and a secondary issue. You might be premil or amil or postmil. I don’t think we have any postmils in the room, but we have amils and premils and people who jump back and forth depending on how they felt when they woke up this morning. It’s a matter of opinion. The only essential parts of your eschatology are these: Christ will return, there will be a bodily resurrection of the dead, and the present heavens and earth will be destroyed by fire and recreated at the end of time, ushering in the eternal state in the new heavens and new earth. Everything else is opinion. The nature of the kingdom, the future dynamics of the nation of Israel, tribulation, antichrist, are all matters of opinion. Therefore, we should be quick to welcome those who differ from us on these matters.

How about practical concerns that tend to be hot topics for Christians today?

What you wear to church. Some churches have a lot of suit and dress people. You ever been to Grace Community Church? They have a lot of suit and dress people. I worked at Grace Church of the Valley in 2018, one of the most faithful and thriving churches in the state of California in my opinion, and most people wore shorts and flip flops on Sunday morning, and even Pastor Scott Ardavanis, who also serves as a seminary professor and board member of the Master’s University might be found wearing shorts and flip flops while preaching! Two principles with church clothes: remember that you are coming into the presence of almighty God to worship. Dress accordingly. Secondly, remember that when you come to church, it’s about God, not about you. Make sure you draw attention to Him and not to yourself. Keep those principles in mind, and wear whatever you want, and don’t hold others in contempt for doing the same.

Entertainment choices. This is another hot topic these days. What music do I listen to as a Christian? What movies do I watch? What books do I read? Despite what many folks may say, there is some leeway here. What is perfectly acceptable for one person to watch, listen to, or read, may not be for someone else. Let me provide some examples. John Milton’s Paradise Lost is, in my opinion, the greatest poem ever written. It contains one of the most compelling and theologically accurate depictions of Satan ever written by a person. I love Paradise Lost, and have read it multiple times to my enjoyment. There may be some folks, however, who take issue with the compelling and oftentimes harrowing depiction of Satan in the book. It is theologically accurate and Biblically faithful and is produced out of what we might call a sanctified imagination. Nevertheless, for someone who has perhaps struggled with Satanism or demonic worship before coming to Christ, those depictions may be problematic and may cause them to stumble. So for me, who has no problem with it, I will not force this sensitive brother or sister to read Paradise Lost or subject them to the vivid imagery contained therein. Here’s another example. In 2004 Mel Gibson released the Passion of the Christ, again, in my opinion, one of the greatest films ever made and one of the most historically accurate depictions of the crucifixion. However, Mel Gibson is a devout Catholic. He includes extra-Biblical material concerning the crucifixion of Christ that doesn’t occur in the actual Biblical narrative but comes from Roman Catholic tradition. For me, that’s not a big deal. I know what it is, I know what it means, I know where it comes from, and I know that it may not have actually happened that way. But for someone who comes from a deeply Roman Catholic background and is familiar with that imagery and those themes, a movie like Passion of the Christ could be problematic because those things are the things that they left behind when they rejected the errors of Catholicism and embraced the true gospel. So I won’t subject that sensitive brother or sister to watch such a film, and I won’t mock or berate them for not wanting to watch it. The Passion of the Christ also touches on another area that I’ve encountered in my life. Obviously, the movie contains a depiction of Jesus. Some folks out there, especially in the Reformed community, have a conviction that such depictions of Jesus are violations of the second commandment which says that you shall not make for yourself a graven image. Their conviction is that any depiction of Jesus constitutes a graven image and is forbidden. There’s some debate theologically as to what the definition of an image is according to Moses, so this would fall into the category of opinions and secondary issues. So if I have a friend who has this conviction, while I don’t, I will not force them to watch movies that contain depictions of Christ since it will violate their conscience, and I will respect and honor that conviction and welcome that Christian without judgment.

Drinking alcohol. I am getting progressively more controversial as I go here this morning, aren’t I? The Bible does not forbid consumption of alcohol. Paul commands Timothy to drink wine, Jesus drank it at least twice that we have recorded in the gospels. This was real wine, not grape juice, and it is likely very similar to the wine we would find today. What the Bible does forbid is drunkenness and idolatry. If you drink so much alcohol that you become impaired, you have sinned. If alcohol is so important to you that you can’t live without it, you have sinned. But moderated, self-controlled enjoyment of alcohol is not forbidden. Nevertheless, many Christians have a conviction about alcohol and will not drink it no matter the circumstances. My grandparents are this way. Why? My great-grandfather on my papa’s side died in his early 40s because he was an alcoholic and all of his internal organs shut down because of it. He pickled himself. Same thing happened to my great-grandmother on my nana’s side. My grandparents will not touch alcohol because they’ve seen it destroy lives and kill loved ones. I know for a fact that there are some of you in this room who, like my grandparents, will not drink alcohol of any kind. I likewise know that there are others of you who do not share that conviction and drink in moderation from time to time. Each of you have a responsibility to the other to not condemn, not judge, not mock, and not belittle the other for their convictions. Whether you are sensitive or strong in this area, you are to welcome one another in Christ.

So we’ve adequately demonstrated the need to welcome one another, and specifically welcome the more sensitive brothers and sisters. But Paul also answers the question, why? Why do we accept the more sensitive brothers and sisters? Why do we welcome the weak in faith? That leads us to Paul’s first theological rationale in his argument:

Theological rationale #1 - God has welcomed the weaker brother - 14:3b

That rationale is this: we accept, welcome, receive, the one who is weak in faith, the one who is more sensitive, because God Himself has welcomed them into his family.

In other words, the reason we receive the sensitive brother or sister is because we desire to follow the example of God Himself in Christ.

Our reception and acceptance of the weaker brother is therefore grounded in who God is. It is grounded in His mercy, His grace, and His faithfulness.

There is a warning to be made here, follow by two implications. Let’s draw them out.

First, the warning. We need to be careful not to abuse this verse. As I mentioned previously, many people use this as an opportunity to allow and support all kinds of errant theology and bad behavior. They say “We have to accept (fill in the blank) because God has accepted them!” That is not what Paul is saying. We do not accept and welcome into warm-hearted fellowship those who deny primary doctrines or disobey primary ethical commands. We do not welcome those who deny the deity of Christ. We do not welcome those who deny the total depravity of man. We do not welcome those who deny the utter sovereignty of God in salvation. Likewise, we do not welcome those who openly practice or affirm homosexuality. We do not welcome those who openly practice or affirm deception. We do not welcome those who openly practice or affirm abortion.

These are non-negotiables, and Paul is not making some kind of concession on those things here. What he is doing is telling the Roman church and us that we are to make careful distinctions on primary and secondary matters, between dogmas and opinions. We do not compromise on the dogmas, but we do gladly welcome and receive those who differ from us on opinions.

That being said, let’s look at some implications.

We must be careful to not draw lines in places God and His Word do not draw. Many times Christians place greater restrictions on other Christians than God Himself places on them. We are not God, and it is arrogant play God. When we decide to bind the consciences of others with legalism, we put ourselves in the place of God, and in a way, declare ourselves to be wiser than God. We say in effect “God didn’t make this rule, but we need it, so I’m making it.” This is a grave error and one that we ought to avoid. This was the consensus of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:10

Acts 15:10 LSB

“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

We must be careful to ensure that we are not guilty of that same sin.

By welcoming the weaker brother, we have an opportunity to contribute to that brother’s assurance. What do I mean by this? Sometimes Christians struggle with doubts. We struggle with our own faithlessness and insecurities and sins and wonder if God has turned his back on us. These struggles are common to Christians. By using identical language to describe our accepting of the weaker brother in verse 1 and God’s accepting of the weaker brother in verse 3, Paul tells us that our glad welcome and hearty reception of the one who is weak in faith is a signal and marker of God’s glad welcome and hearty reception of that same one. So when a weak brother or sister has doubts, we have a part to play in assuring them that God has accepted them by accepting them ourselves. We might say at this point that the church is the open, welcoming arms of God to the Christian who doubts and struggles with assurance.

Paul undergirds his argument with a second theological rationale in verse 4:

Theological rationale #2 - Christ is Lord - 14:4a

Having appealed to the mercy and kindness of God, who accepts the sensitive Christian, He now appeals to the personal lordship of Christ as a further theological grounds for this command to welcome the weaker brother.

He uses, as he often does, a rhetorical question. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To put in kindergarten terms, you’re not the boss of him! Your brothers and sisters, either sensitive or strong, have one master, and it’s not you. They report to one captain, the Lord Jesus Christ. They do not report to you.

Again the underpinned implication here is clear: if you cast judgment on your fellow Christians for their convictions, if you stand above them and condemn them or mock them or quarrel with them over their opinions, you have placed yourself in the position of their master, and if you have placed yourself in the position of their master, you have placed yourself in the position of God, and if you have placed yourself in the position of God, you have a committed a grave offense against Him.

A few decades ago there was a pastor in the Pacific Northwest who was notorious for this type of behavior. He would routinely cast judgment upon those who weren’t cut from his mold, who weren’t made in his image, as it were. In fact, he famously said once that their church was a bus, and if you weren’t on board with them in even the smallest details, you would get thrown off the bus and thrown under the bus, and he further said that he believed that in the end, that bus would be sitting on top of a pile of bodies that had been thrown off the bus and under the bus. Shocking imagery from the mouth of a pastor. This is the type of attitude that Paul is speaking to here. You’re not the boss! And guess what? For all the dogmaticians out there who want to foist their opinions on their churches and on their fellow believers, Paul is talking to you. In fact he sneers at you with this rhetorical question: Who do you think you are? It’s ironic because that same pastor once went on a rant from the pulpit against young men in his church who weren’t fitting his mold of tough, patriotic masculinity and used that same language: who do you think you are? And Paul I think would be saying the same exact thing to him for refusing to welcome, with gladness, those faithful Christians who either held different convictions or weren’t as far along in the journey of Christian maturity as he was.

Paul’s point: you’re not the boss of him. He will make an account before the Lord one day for every word and deed. So will you. So step back, and welcome these weaker brothers and sisters.

Theological rationale #3 - Christ is Savior - 14:4b

Paul makes another theological assertion in the last half of verse 4. He will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Somebody go to Psalm 1:5, preferably if you have the ESV or NIV. Tell me what that first line says.

According to David, who won’t stand in the judgment? The wicked.

According to Paul in 14:4, who will stand in the judgment? The weaker brother.

Why? The Lord is able to make him stand.

Go back to 14:1, how is the weaker brother described? He is weak in faith. He still has a little faith! And how much faith is necessary for the Lord to cause you to stand, rather than fall, before Him on the day of judgment? Jesus said faith the size of a mustard seed. How big is that? It’s tiny. Yet that much faith will please the Lord to cause that weaker brother to stand in the day of final judgment.

So if the Lord is going to cause this person to stand on the final day, who are we to tear them down before we get there? May we never be guilty of such atrocities. Welcome the weaker brother, accept them, receive them in gladness for, by the mercy of Christ, we will all stand together on the last day.

Example situation #2 - Holidays - 14:5a

Ethical principle #2 - Conscience - 14:5b

Theological rationale #3 - The Lordship of Christ - 14:6-9

Theological rationale #4 - The Final Judgment - 14:10-12

Ethical principle #3 - Don’t place stumbling blocks - 14:13-15

Ethical principle #4 - Be above reproach - 14:16

Theological rationale #5 - The nature of the kingdom - 14:17

Personal Implication #1 - Favor with God and men - 14:18

Thesis summary - 14:19-23