Not of Faith

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 40]

     This issue of the paper provides a proper forum for expressing my view concerning the abuse of Romans 14:23, by controversialists who appear more interested in winning arguments than in serving the cause of truth. I am reluctant to mention this, knowing in advance that my motives will be misjudged, but my reticence is overcome by a firm resolution to maintain integrity in interpretation, regardless of personal cost. If the fallacy was committed only by Nov.-

[Page 41]

ices I would be inclined to ignore it, but since it crops up in other journals under the signatures of college professors who are sure that they are "a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, a corrector of the foolish," a few words on the matter seem to be imperative.

     Although the illogical argument has been used in opposition to various things--ups, classes, colleges, and collectives for the care of orphans,--it is more frequently employed as the culminating barrage against instrumental music in corporate worship. The argument customarily proceeds along the following lines. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). Instrumental music does not come by hearing the word of God, because the word of God is silent concerning its use in the church. Therefore, instrumental music is not of faith. After concocting this syllogism, which hardly deserves to be so designated, a second phase is introduced. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). Instrumental music in worship is not of faith. Therefore, instrumental music in worship is a sin. Those who regard individual cups, classes, colleges, or institutional orphan homes as a sin, merely slip the words "instrumental music" out and drop their own issues of the moment in the vacant slots and they have a ready-made argument as incontrovertible proof of the utter sinfulness of whatever it is they oppose.

     One does not have to be especially adept in either the sacred scriptures or science of dialectics to point out at least three loopholes in this compound of propositions. However, we must confine ourselves to one which twists a scripture and spins a web of sophistry. We are not thereby entering into an examination of the right or wrong of cups, classes, colleges, clarinets or concert pianos. This is aside from our present pursuit. Our point of investigation centers around the meaning of the expression, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." We think that, correctly understood, this passage might convey exactly the opposite meaning to that intended by orthodox debaters.

     The 14th chapter of Romans is devoted to showing us how we can live together in spite of differences and varied concepts. This difficult assignment can be achieved only by mutual recognition of and respect for the following principles which are elemental to the Christian structure.

     1. The basis upon which God welcomes us all. He receives us with our varied scruples and opinions (14:3), and we must "welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you" (15:7).

     2. The absolute and universal lordship of Jesus (14:9), which makes him the sole judge of all as to motive and practice (14:10), and removes such judgment from our sphere of action.

     3. The inviolability and sovereignty of the individual conscience which determines for each saint the validity of any action or thing at a given time. Even that which is not unclean of itself becomes unclean to one who thinks it is unclean (14:14).

     4. The law of relative values which makes a man for whom Christ died more important than any thing for which Christ did not die. Incorporated in this is the truth that a man is of more value than his thoughts (14:15, 16).

     5. The nature of the kingdom of God which consists of universals of such magnitude as to transcend mere transitory things, and which provide a foundation upon which all of us can stand (14:18).

     6. The reciprocal obligation devolving upon all to pursue only what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding (14:19).

     One who does not predicate his approach to this chapter upon these considerations will be like a ship without a rudder or a plane without radar. We are now ready to consider the meaning of faith in verses 22, 23. "The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves." Obviously Paul is not talking here about the faith which saves, about which he spoke in Romans 10:17. That faith is to be proclaimed and shared. The faith here is a

[Page 42]

personal conviction as to whether one in Christ can engage in certain things which others do in Christ. It is a private persuasion. "Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind" (verse 5). As Phillips very aptly translates it, "Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God, and you are happy if you have no qualms about what you allow yourself to eat." One must not inject this faith, or impose it upon others. He must cherish it in the full realization that God knows he is right even if some brethren do not think so.      One must never act against personal conviction. Even if a thing is right one must not violate his conscience and do it if it appears wrong to him. If he has doubts he must resolve them or overcome them before he proceeds. "But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatsoever does not proceed from faith is sin." Since this faith is one's personal conviction or opinion, will the brethren who employ the statement in opposition to the use of instrumental music, concede that it is not sin for those to use it whose consciences do not condemn them and who act in "good faith." Will they agree on this issue to "let every one be fully convinced in his own mind?" Will they cease judging those who do and let them stand or fall to their own Master? Or, will they pilfer the passage from its context and rob it of its setting to make an argument?

     Now comes a strange paradox. When we begin to ask such questions, the reply is that this chapter is not dealing with such things as instrumental music at all, and it does not fall into the category of eating meats and respecting days. Then why do these brethren appeal to the final verse as the major premise in their syllogism? The height of inconsistency was reached by one brother writing in a prominent partisan journal published in the Southland. In one issue he employed the final verse of Romans 14 to prove that instrumental music in the worship was a sin, and shortly thereafter devoted a page to proving that the chapter had nothing to do with such matters. "Surely the legs of the lame are not equal."

     It is right, and even obligatory, for our brethren to oppose that which they conceive to be detrimental to the sacred scriptures, but they should not need to rewrite those scriptures in order to do so. Those who propose to quote from Romans 14 need to decide which side they will take. One cannot pitch on both teams and be the umpire too. He cannot operate both ends of the see-saw at the same time! It is astonishing indeed how the defenders of partisan programs will warp and wrest the very word they claim to recognize as authority.