Two examples are given: meat/no meat and days/no days. Either side of both can be observed individually without affecting the assembly.

Would you fellowship a congregation that taught and practiced the OT Sabbath laws? Would they fellowship you?

Some conservatives teach that communion can only be taken on Sunday. That’s a form of observing special days. Yet many of them would consider it apostasy to take communion on any day other than Sunday. They are fully convinced in their own minds… as are those who take communion on other days. But do they accept one another?

“Receive one another as Christ has received you”. Two examples are given: meat/no meat and days/no days. Either side of both can be observed individually without affecting the assembly. Thus, “do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God.” “To yourself” sets it in the area of individual practice. On the other hand, if something I do affects other brethren, I should “pursue the things that make for peace” and edification and “do not destroy” others by my liberty. An assembly matter affects all, even if it is offered in a separate service. How so? In a congregation there are the mature and the novice and all in between. There are those with settled convictions born of years of study and experience and others who are influenced easily. In assembly settings Paul was concerned about how things are perceived by the uninformed and unbelievers (1 Cor 14:16, 23, 24). The two service suggestion might make for peace (though I doubt it actually would) but it definitely falls short in edification in the mind of those convinced IM is unauthorized. Why? Because very possibly (even likely, in view of its fleshly appeal) the immature and uninformed will be led to accept and participate in it. It would tear down rather than build up. To see the end result consider Randall’s comment Aug 26, 8:52 AM that seems to promote “receive”/”accept” all denominations regardless of belief or practice.

Earlier in 1 Cor 11 Paul spoke of another assembly matter: the LS. He emphasized communing with care because if it is treated lightly a child of God can put his salvation at risk. Communing in an unworthy manner brings “judgment to himself”. Can a child of God lose his salvation by failing to observe the LS properly? “We are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world”. Worship matters. A continued carelessness in regard to proper communing betrays a lack of genuine penitence. Thus Paul warned them that they should correct their behavior “lest you come together for judgment”.

In one post, you say you refuse to judge those on disagree on such issues as IM. In the next, you judge IM as an open door to greater departures and say that you could not worship in an a cappella service in a church where the elders consider IM indifferent. It sure sounds like judging to me.

I certainly agree that we cannot personally participate in those things we consider sinful. But you seem to say that you cannot be in a congregation led by men who disagree with you on matters of worship, even if you are personally unaffected. You have one standard for worship and church organization and another for everything else.

I see the problem if a church appointed women elders. You could not in good conscience submit to their authority. I see the problem regarding immersion vs. sprinkling. You can’t treat as saved those you consider lost due to being unbaptized. But I don’t see how instruments in a service you don’t attend affects you — other than the old argument that you somehow “condone” the IM by being a member of a church that does these things. But I’ve never bought the argument on condoning, because I’ve read Rom 14-15. Paul said,

(Rom 14:5) One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Paul says that even though you disagree, you should both be “fully convinced” in your own minds. He’s not speaking of issues where both sides are uncertain. He’s talking about issues where both sides are fully convinced and disagree. And he commands them to “accept one another” (15:7).

As I explained back at http://oneinjesus.info/2009/04/29/baptist-sacramentalism-2/, Paul is speaking of “accept” in the sense of being part of the same table communion. This is real, take-the-Lord’s Supper-together fellowship he has in mind.

In the congregation there were about a dozen different denominational and non denomination backgrounds and that was just among those from the USA. We also had other groups represented from Canada, the UK, Germany, South Africa and other western cultures. Then there were the Filipinos, Thais, Indians (Jacobite Church for example), Kenyans, Somalis, Eritreans and on and on. And all this was in the English speaking service.

Some were paedobaptists and others that practiced immersion. Some were Calvinists and others thought that was a bad word. There were charismatics and cessationists. Some were involved in other ministries that combated evolution and others didn’t think that was an important issue.

And there were several from the CofC, but we all got along. We baptized by immersion in the swimming pool, but didn’t harbor ill will towards those that took their children to the Anglican church to have them sprinkled. When they were asked to women prayed in church (I was once told by a Baptist that a CofC person said that CofC women don’t pray), but the church was led by men.

I suppose we all compromised some. Some made it a point to discuss some of these issues when appropriate – but usually for the purpose of understanding better rather than correcting.

It was not perfect but it was a whole lot better than breaking into a dozen or more different groups.

The idea that one person playing an instrument violates another person’s conscience is misguided. If we could get past that, we could make tremendous progress toward real unity.

I agree that an eldership that sees IM as sin can’t easily offer an instrumental service. It is certainly easier for an eldership that considers IM as indifferent to offer two services, but in that case, both those who approve and disapprove IM ought to be willing to join the congregation.

However, I disagree to this extent. I think we get ourselves tied up in a knot when we extend fellowship to those more conservative than us (who bind where we don’t bind) and refuse fellowship to those less conservative (who loose where we do not loose). You see, when we act this way, we may extend fellowship to those more conservative than us, but they can’t extend fellowship back. Hence, no mutual fellowship, which means no actual fellowship.

Therefore, an eldership (and Christians) have to be willing to fully accept Christians on their left — loosing where they do not loose. Hence, a no-Sunday school eldership should be willing to accept members who insist on meeting in classes, even if not “official” classes of the church.

There are limits, of course. Your marijuana example is one, because marijuana is illegal in all 50 states (by federal law), California notwithstanding. But imagine a church where the elders are opposed to drinking, and a member believes the occasional glass of wine is no sin. Should they disfellowship him? Or accept him despite their beliefs?

One rule, I think, is that we have to be especially gracious and tolerant on positive law issues, where there is no moral component. And we teach what we believe, no matter what. But the law of love is absolute and non-negotiable. Therefore, moral laws are generally quite plain and not really a matter of genuine dispute.

But even on moral laws, there are gray areas. Pacifism would be a classic example, and we’ve routinely accepted one another’s disagreements even though it’s a moral question that’s all about “love your enemies” and “love your neighbor.”

In short, a little humility and a lot of love goes a long way in creating unity in fact. Refusing all fellowship with those who loose where you do not violates Rom 14-15 and prevents unity in fact.

I would never encourage someone with your convictions to practice IM in worship. “He who doubts is condemned if he eats.” I understand that.

As Jay has carefully explained, there are certain things that are required to become a Christian. Those same things are all that is required to remain a Christian. Those who are Christians are commanded to accept one another without passing judgment over disputable matters. So the basic things required to becoming a Christian are not what Paul was addressing.

However,a congregation offering both an IM service and an a cappella service raises questions. Suppose a Christian parent has two children who differ in their views on smoking pot. Should he allow both to do as they please in order to maintain unity in the home? If the parent were indifferent to pot smoking, he might do so. But if the parent believed it is wrong to smoke pot, he could not. Likewise an eldership, if they are indifferent towards IM, they might offer two services. But if they believe IM is unauthorized they could not allow its use under their supervision. So while it may seem to be a solution to one who view IM indifferently, it actually solves nothing to the one who sees it as unauthorized.