In church leadership, I’ve sometimes been amazed at what we find to fight about—the taste of the communion wine, spirited disagreement about the way biscuits should be served and the ‘right’ way to say the Lord’s Prayer have all been personal low points. I once made a unilateral decision about the colour of a carpet, as I couldn’t face months of arguing about whether it should be red or blue. Even when there’s generous agreement about the gospel’s heart, there can still be intense, dogmatic debate about controversial questions that aren’t so clear.

Rather than pursuing distinctives that divide, Paul calls both the strong and the weak to pursue that which promotes peace (v 19). The strong must limit their freedom, so as not to grieve their struggling brothers and sisters. It might be unnecessary for the strong not to eat meat to be holy, but it is necessary in terms of the well-being of Christ’s body, the church. They’re challenged not to push their freedom to the point that they alienate their brothers and sisters: that’s to condemn themselves through dogmatism (v 22b). Nor must the weak just go with the flow out of a desire to avoid embarrassment: doing something they believe to be wrong, just to fit in, doesn’t honour God either.

Are there issues in your own church life where there is disagreement? Talk with the Lord about these.

‘Therefore’ (v 13), Paul reiterates to the Roman believers (and us), for the sake of God’s kingdom (v 17) and God’s people, we need to ‘make every effort’ to behave in ways which bring the wholeness of God’s peace (v 19). The result is ‘edification’ of the community. And this is not a one-way process: it is ‘mutual’. It takes a loving humility that enables everyone to learn, everyone to contribute.

Paul makes clear his own conviction about the non-essentials of faith practice (v 20). Now, addressing the needs of this community, he speaks to those who flaunt their freedom in Christ.¹ What you do may be permissible, but is it loving? He uses a gentle sarcasm to highlight his point: would you jeopardise the work of God for the sake of food?!² No, if eating meat and drinking wine causes a problem for others, I’ll not do it (v 21)! There is, as John Stott comments, ‘a difference between private conviction and public behaviour’.³

This matter of conviction (or conscience) is important. It is between you and God (v 22) – not to be paraded in front of others. Amidst the revolutionary changes that Christian faith was bringing to Jewish believers, many would have been troubled (vs 22,23). Paul reassures them as they adjust to the implications of the gospel: check that your own conscience is clear before God; then act accordingly. That which arises from faith does not condemn you (v 22). The same principles apply to us. It’s not that ‘anything goes’; by implication, learning and growth are to be expected. Rather than being concerned about the practices of others, we should first ask ourselves whether our own consciences are clear before the Lord. Does our behaviour then promote peace and bring ‘mutual edification’? 

Reflect on your own behaviour in church. Are you acting or speaking to others in ways that trouble their faith? How might you work to bring God’s peace?  

¹ See 1 Cor 10:23 – 11:1  ² John Stott, The Message of Romans, IVP, 1994, p367  ³ Stott, 1994, p368