As we turn to Romans 14, we find that there is a great deal at stake here, for Paul “recognizes a crisis confronting the congregations in Rome of some magnitude: the danger of a split which could have Jewish believers so alarmed by the abandonment of the old yardsticks of covenant loyalty that they lost their faith in Christ; the danger that a law-free Christianity might cut itself off from its Jewish roots and influence by crass insensitivity” (Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, 812).  

 

Throughout this section of Romans (chapters 12-16), Paul’s overriding concern is preserving the unity of the church.  All of his advice and exhortations are geared towards upholding the fundamental oneness of Christian sisters and brothers in Christ.  As Paul so eloquently states elsewhere, it is in Christ that the barriers between people are destroyed; it is only in Christ that Jews and Gentiles, for example, come to be reconciled.  And yet for all of Paul’s emphasis on the vital unity of the church, conflict abounds.  Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Ephesus – all places marked by Christian infighting and division as a result of the inability to resolve genuine conflicts that have arisen.  Paul accepts that conflicts will naturally arise, for we all see through a glass only dimly.  Conscience, history and circumstances place particular claims on us that we must address; for some Christians – perhaps recent converts, especially, eating meat sacrificed to idols is always wrong.  For others, it is not a problem.  

 

That conflict arises is understandable, even necessary.  Paul’s concern lies in how Christians deal with conflict when it inevitably comes up.  Do they deal humbly with one another, listening and working to understand the other’s perspective, or are they arrogant, disrespectful, unyielding?  In our passage, Paul is especially concerned that theological conviction not become an excuse for dividing the church, for destroying table fellowship between family.  

 

The lectionary selection for this week cuts short Paul’s argument.  He continues in verses 13-15 by saying: “Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another.  I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.  If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.  Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died.”  Here, Paul comes down on one side of the debate (he agrees with the “strong,” that it is permissible to eat meat because “nothing is unclean in itself”), but he underscores that context is everything.  In the context of a community divided, the fact that something is right does not make it beneficial (see I Cor. 6:12, 10:23).  He makes the point in no uncertain terms; one’s freedom – however theologically grounded – must not become a stumbling block for another.  In verse 20, he says, “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.”  

 

Drawing on the depths of Pauline wisdom, theologian John Howard Yoder helpfully reminds us that “Conflict is normal and natural.  In the context of Christian ministry there should be more rather than less of it, since truth tell-

ing, growth, change, and the demands of righteousness concur in bringing more of it to the surface.  Rather than being denied or avoided, conflicts are to be processed, resolved in the light of the message of forgiveness… Conflict resolution is then a special Christian grace, but also a general Christian duty” (Yoder, Conflict Resolution, 6-7).

 

BY CHRIS LIU BEERS, PROGRAM ASSOCIATE,

NC COUNCIL OF CHURCHES