The Impasse

By F. L. Lemley

[Page 134]

     God has provided each of us with a conscience. It is a vital part of our spiritual guidance system. The function of the conscience is to provide a point of reference to tell us if we are on the course as we have been taught, or if we have strayed from our teachings. We cannot ignore the conscience without jeopardizing our relationship with God, for if we do, the conscience will become insensitive and cease to judge our actions accurately. Only by this involuntary voice within can we tell if our actions correspond with our convictions.

     When the consciences of two brethren react differently to the same stimulus a problem is born and they find it difficult to work and worship together. It matters not what the issue may be, the problem of conscience is always the same. Such difficulties can arise over the meat question of Romans 14, the cooperation question as discussed at Arlington, Texas, in recent months, or the instrumental music question that has been with us for a century. The same is true of any issue that has divided the church from Pentecost to the present.

     When brethren try to settle their differences by debate or council, it is obvious that someone must temper his views and thus alter the reaction of his conscience, if progress is to be made. This cannot be done so long as one believes he alone has the truth, and that this truth is essential to salvation of the soul.

[Page 135]

In the eyes of those involved it is a compromise of the truth to modify such a point of conscience. If both sides hold such conviction, an impasse is soon apparent.

     The "pro brother" (on any issue) may propose that he may eat or abstain, cooperate or not cooperate, sing with or without the instrument, but the conviction of the "anti brother" will hinder any progress because he cannot surrender conviction or acquiesce in what he believes to be error. His conscience prohibits his cooperation in the suggestions of the "pro brother." Any proposal for fraternization is nullified by the sensitive conscience of one brother. What is the solution?

     To make this study real and relevant, I have before me two articles in the same magazine written by two honest and sincere brethren who differ on the instrumental music question. Both offer ten suggestions that are positive for promoting better understanding and relationship between the two segments of the church which they represent. The difference is of long standing and quite involved.

     Brother A, who is pro-instrument, suggests more fraternization, by exchange of pulpits, encouragement of members to freely worship with whatever group is nearest, and generally working together more often. Brother B, who is an "anti" so far as the use of the instrument is concerned responds that since he believes that the use of an instrument, or of singing with it, is sinful, that he cannot favor such fraternization. To him it would be encouraging the members to sin. So such concessions are impossible for Brother B. Thus we reach an impasse. This experience pinpoints our difficulties very vividly.

     Let us observe that we all find ourselves on both sides of the problem. We are all on different rungs of the ladder of conscience. Some have a conscience which will allow them to go much farther than others. All of us can reach back to the brother behind us, but none of us can reach forward over the line drawn by individual conscience. Brother A, in the illustration, would find himself in the position of Brother B, if the offer for fraternization had come to him from the Disciples of Christ with regard to their differences. Likewise, Brother B would find himself able to offer more fraternization to brethren who differ on such issues as cups, classes, church cooperation, etc. But these brethren could not accept for the same reason that B refuses to fraternize with A. We thus have a vicious cycle with no end in sight. We are all apparently on different coaches of the same train, or standing on different rungs of the same ladder. It is evident that if we solve the problem for one segment we will solve it for all.

     What is the answer to our baffling problem? It is found in Romans 14, but it will take some re-evaluation, re-appraisal, and revising of our traditions to freely accept the solution. First we must rid ourselves of the rationalization that the meat question of Romans 14 deals with optional or unimportant issues, whereas our own are all important and essential to salvation, thus are vital issues. The reason we categorize the meat question as unimportant is because we are all above that rung of conscience and all on the same side of the issue. We are all meat eaters, when we can obtain meat, so there is no problem of conscience. A few reared in the Adventist faith may have a conscience prohibiting certain meats, but the majority of us are untroubled about that.

     But the question of eating meat is neither optional nor unimportant to one whose conscience is involved. For such a man, eating meat is a matter of life or death, it is a matter of faith. His conviction is in error, of course, but his conscience holds to what he has been taught is correct even if it is in error. The man who has a conscience based on misinformation and who carelessly over-rides it is as much a sinner before God as the man whose information is correct and who violates his conscience. To ignore one's conscience is a sin without regard to the validity of his faith on the matter.

[Page 136]

     But how did God view the error of the weak brother? He received the weak man in spite of his error, while he was in his error, and while he fully intended to implement that error. This was the kind of error which did not prevent one becoming a child of God, so did not prevent him being a "received" child after his spiritual birth. This is the kind of error that has nothing to do with birth.

     It has nothing to do with faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, which is essential to birth. This error was developed from human inference and deduction in the process of studying the word. It could have developed after birth as well as before, but in either case it is of such nature that it does not have to be corrected--ever! Admittedly, it would be more desirable to have it corrected. But it is not essential. God had received both the strong and the weak as his children. Now their problem was to learn to work together in spite of the difference.

     The weak brother could very well have fallen into the following fallacies:

     1. My brother is wrong and, therefore, a sinner for eating meat. If he is wrong, he is lost. I must convert him from the error of his way. If I cannot, then "a heretic after the first and second admonition reject."

     2. My brother is in error, so I cannot sing, pray, or worship with him lest I become partaker of his evil deeds. Fellowship in song, prayer and communion, is the equivalent of endorsement of his eating meat.

     3. Unless we can agree in everything we cannot walk together in anything.

     4. I will try to convert my brother. If he will not hear me, I will take two or three others with me and if he will not hear them I will tell it to the church (my congregation), then he will be to me as a heathen and a publican.

     Of course, in all this the weak brother would never recognize that he is the weak brother, for to him, the other brother is the weak one!

     On the other hand, the strong brother could fall into the same errors, plus some others. He might take the following attitudes:

     1. I am right on the meat question and must convert my brother to the truth on this question. If any man bring not this doctrine, mark that man and have nothing to do with him. To eat (the Lord's Supper) with such a man is to bid him Godspeed and become a partaker of his evil deeds.

     2. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free, and if a brother will not accept the truth, he is still in the bondage of sin. He must, therefore, be re-baptized if he desires to become a member with us.

     3. Since my brother is in error I cannot receive him as a brother until he confesses his faults on the issue involved or is converted to the Lord by baptism.

     4. I must either debate him and expose his error to all, or we must sit in conference until we arrive at the truth and both agree perfectly before we can have fellowship to anything. To call on one who is in error to pray, sing, or teach, is to have fellowship in his error.

     Reason alone, without the word should tell us that such ideas are fallacious. All truth is true, but all truth is not of equal value, nor is all truth related to our salvation. The same is true of error. All error is undesirable, but not all error is fatal to the soul. We have fellowship only in that in which we participate. If we do not participate in the song service we have no fellowship in the song service. If we do not contribute to mission work we have no fellowship in mission work.

     It is an error to assume that to have fellowship in one thing in which we do agree, constitutes fellowship in that which we oppose. It is an error to apply the scriptures dealing with the withdrawing from spiritual outlaws to godly, honest, sincere men who honestly differ. Until both the strong and the weak in the twentieth century rid themselves of these false concepts the impasse will prevail.

     God's solution is different! To the strong, God says, "Accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of

[Page 137]

passing judgment on his opinions" (Romans 14:1). That is, you do not need to debate him or sit in conference until you agree. God has already received him as a child, which shows that his particular error is not a fatal one. If an error is not of the nature to prevent birth it cannot prevent brotherhood after birth. The "opinion" of the weak as viewed by the strong, is a matter of faith to the weak brother (verse 22). To the weak, eating meats or not eating them is a matter of faith, that is, conviction derived from inference and deduction in studying God's Word.

     To the strong, God says, "Do not regard your brother with contempt" (verse 3). To the weak, "Do not judge him who eats, for God has accepted him" (verse 3). To the weak, "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God" (verse 22). That is, though this is a question of grave importance to you, and essential to your personal salvation, since I have received your brother who does not agree with this, you should know this is not a matter of life or death to anyone but you. So you are not to try to convert the whole world to your concepts on this question since it is a matter of human inference and deduction.

     To both God says, "Do not judge one another, for each will stand on his own before God. Pursue that which makes for peace. You need not debate the question, but work and worship together in so far as you agree. Love one another and do not put a stumblingbiock in the way of each other. You need not eat at the same table, but if you do, be considerate of one another."

     Paul and Barnabas found it necessary to go their separate ways. Both did a wonderful work for the Lord and both were right in their contention. Barnabas had the good of Mark in view and Paul had the good of the work in view. Barnabas saved Mark and Paul prospered in his work.

     When my brother has a conscience that differs from mine in its reactions, he must abide by his conscience until the impediment is removed, and I must allow him to do so. In the meantime, both of us must strive to understand the principle which will permit us to have fellowship together while differing in conscience.

     The one question which must precede all discussion of any issue is, "Is this issue vital to childhood?" If it is not, it is not vital to brotherhood, and we must find a solution which will allow us to work together as brethren. If one can become a child, and thus become saved in spite of an error, it must occupy a place of secondary importance. We can resolve the impasse without infringing upon the conscience of any brother if we understand the principle God has given.

     (Editor's Note: F. L. Lemley can be addressed at Wheat Ridge Heights Church of Christ, 5925 West 32nd Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80212. Write him your reaction to the above article).