WHAT PRICE PEACE?

Peace among Christian brethren is very vital to our success and even to our survival as the body of Christ. But should we be willing to pursue peace at any price? Is peace with others paramount above everything else in our Christian lives?

This is a very serious question which requires a very diligent examination of the Bible to answer it. In Romans 14 the Apostle Paul speaks extensively about peace and how we should make every effort to be at peace with our weaker brethren. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye" (Rom 14:1). "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak (Rom 15:1).

The question which Paul does not fully address here though, is just how far should we go to accommodate those who are weak? Should we be willing to accept practically any differences in belief and practice as some have suggested? Should we say that those who have bible classes, women teachers, a located minister, who condone divorce and remarriage, and follow after many other unscriptural practices, are only weak in faith and should therefore be received into our fellowship? To do such would be in clear violation of the teachings of the Bible.

Paul, or any other inspired writer, never taught that we should pursue peace at the expense of sound doctrine. To the contrary, a pursuit of sound doctrine should automatically unite those who seek and obey the truth. Unity is found, not by compromising the truth, but by insisting upon it!

The apostle Paul taught very clearly that Christians are EXPECTED to follow the same doctrine. And that those who do follow sound doctrine should separate themselves from those who choose to follow another path. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us" (II Thes 3:6). "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed" (II Thes 3:14).

Paul also spoke of the "unity of the faith (Eph 4:13)." This unity of the faith is possible because there is only ONE FAITH──at least only one faith recognized by God (Eph 4:5). Those who have this faith serve God, those who have another faith do not. And from where does this faith come? "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:17).

By hearing, and then understanding, God's Word, men are able to develop the kind of faith God desires us to have. Those who have this common faith are then united by virtue of the fact that their beliefs and practices are the same. No compromise is necessary. Very much to the contrary, the more people adhere to the teachings of the Bible the more easily unity is achieved. It is only when people turn from the Bible that disunity arises.

In Romans 14, Paul tells us that we should not grieve our brother by our actions. "But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died" (Rom 14:15). But what does Paul mean by "meat" here? Would this include ALL doctrine─the worship of the church, the mode of baptism, etc.? If not, then how and where do we make the distinction? Paul is either saying we should be lenient in all matters or only lenient in some matters. If we say that he is telling us to be lenient in all matters, then we must accept everyone who calls himself a Christian, regardless of his beliefs or practices. It would further mean that there would never be grounds for separating from the disobedient──something which we have just seen Paul command.

If, as almost anyone would agree, there are at least some things which cannot be compromised, then we must identify those things for which we can excuse weaker brethren. The answer is actually quite apparent if we look closely at Romans 14. Paul said, "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself (Rom 14:14). He is not saying here that NOTHING at all is unclean and that spiritually, "everything goes," as some would have us to believe. Paul is speaking here of things which lie outside of what the Bible teaches.

The Bible, for example, does not tell me I am allowed to wear blue jeans. Do I sin then if I wear blue jeans? Certainly not, because the Bible says nothing about what sort of pants I am allowed to wear. I could, however, sin if I decided to wear very tight jeans because I wanted to cause women to lust after me. But it wouldn't be the jeans which were wrong, it would be my use of them.

But what if a brother came to me and said that he thought it was wrong to wear jeans because so many people do wear them tight for the purpose of inciting lust in others? If he sincerely felt it to be wrong, then I would be obligated to stop wearing jeans lest I offend him. Obviously, the brother would be mistaken, but that would not change my responsibility to "bear the infirmities of the weak" (Rom 15:1).

I would be in a position to stop wearing jeans because the Bible does not command me TO wear them. We are dealing with a topic completely outside of biblical teachings. It is as with Paul's example of eating meat. He said that it didn't really matter one way or another, unless our eating meat offended a brother. "But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse" (I Cor 8:8).

The entire topic of Romans 14 is those things which the Bible does not mention in any way, and are therefore a matter of personal choice, and NOT those things which the Bible does teach about. When we wish to know if something is right or wrong we should first look to see if it is taught directly in the Bible. If it is, then we should take what the Bible says and leave it at that. If its not there directly, then we must look to see if it is inferred. The Bible says we should sing (Eph 5:19), but says nothing about a song leader. It is implied that someone will decide what to sing, how fast to sing it, and when to begin singing it. Thus a song leader is implied without ever being mentioned directly.

But if something cannot be inferred from the scriptures, then we must look to see if any biblical principles have application to it. Gambling, for instance, is not condemned directly or indirectly in the Bible, but we conclude that it is wrong because it violates certain biblical principles.

Finally, if no biblical principles have application, then we are free to use our personal judgment in the matter. These are matters such as eating meat, wearing blue jeans, etc. And it is precisely because we are dealing with matters of opinion, and not subjects which the Bible teaches on, that we should expect disagreement. And it is in these areas where we can compromise our opinions in order to keep from offending a weaker brother. But NEVER should we compromise on anything the Bible teaches. It is the Bible which shall judge us (Joh 12:48, Rev 20:12), so if we compromise it, then we are compromising our faith, and thereby our souls.

One qualification of an elder in the church is that he hold "fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers" (Tit 1:9). How can he hold fast what he has been taught, while at the same time trying to achieve "unity though diversity" by accepting into his fellowship those practicing error? It's like asking how you can get to the other side of the street and at the same time stay on this side. It can't be done.

We have now fully reached the time Paul warned us about. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (II Tim 4:3-4). These "teachers" are now seeking to justify their false doctrines by preaching "unity through diversity." They would have us extend to them the right hand of fellowship, regardless of how far from the Bible pattern they may be. But as Paul said, "what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?" (II Cor 6:14). To accept "unity through diversity" is to reject God.

Perhaps the Apostle John said it best, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (II Joh 10-11). After all, God never said "he that has compromised the truth in order to be at peace with his brother if accepted of God," but rather he said, "he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:35).