Unity or Conformity?

Division among brethren is painful. Most of us recognize that. We talk about unity, pray for unity, and sometimes even lament that certain divisions never should have happened in the first place.

One explanation I have heard repeatedly is that if brethren had simply been more mindful of one another’s consciences, perhaps some of these divisions could have been avoided.

There is truth in that.

Paul plainly teaches us to care about the conscience of our brother. Romans 14 warns us against putting a stumbling block in another Christian’s way. First Corinthians 8 teaches that there are times when love should cause me to surrender something I believe I have the liberty to do. Paul was even willing to say, “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again” (1 Corinthians 8:13).

That is a remarkable willingness to sacrifice for the sake of a brother.

But there is an important difference between respecting another person’s conscience and being required to adopt it.

Suppose two brethren disagree about a particular practice. One believes it is permissible. The other believes it is wrong. The first brother, desiring peace and concerned about the conscience of the second, says, “I do not believe this practice is sinful, but because it troubles you and I value our relationship, I am willing to give it up.”

Would that be enough?

Sometimes, apparently, it is not.

The expectation begins as, “If they would just stop doing this, perhaps we could have unity.” Then they stop. But soon the standard changes. “Well, they also need to stop supporting and having fellowship with those who do it.” Perhaps they do that as well. Then comes another requirement: “But they have never publicly admitted that the practice is wrong.” And eventually, simply refraining from the disputed practice is no longer sufficient. They must condemn it. They must use the same terminology. They must draw the same lines. They must reach the same conclusion.

At some point we need to ask whether we are still seeking unity or whether we have begun demanding conformity.

There is a point at which a demand for unity becomes a demand for conformity.

Certainly, Christianity requires conformity to Christ. There are matters God has revealed upon which we do not have the liberty to simply invent our own truth. Paul spoke of the “one faith” (Ephesians 4:5), and John warned against going beyond the teaching of Christ (2 John 9). Biblical unity has never meant that doctrine does not matter.

But conformity to Christ is not necessarily the same thing as conformity to every conclusion I have reached.

Romans 14 demonstrates that brethren can sometimes reach different conclusions while still being obligated to receive one another. One ate while another abstained. One regarded one day above another while someone else regarded every day alike. Paul did not solve the disagreement by demanding that everyone reach an identical conclusion.

Instead, he said:

“The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him” (Romans 14:3).

Notice what Paul did not say. He did not tell the brother who ate that he must eventually admit that eating was sinful. Neither did he allow the brother who abstained to make his conscience the standard by which everyone else was judged.

Both were accountable to the Lord.

That brings us to a question I believe we desperately need to consider:

If a brother gives up something for my sake, but I still refuse him because he will not agree that I was right about it, whose conscience am I really concerned about?

That question gets to the heart of the matter.

If my brother is willing to refrain from something because it troubles me, he is respecting my conscience. If I then insist that refraining is not enough and demand that he must also believe what I believe before I will receive him, I am no longer asking him to respect my conscience.

I am asking him to adopt my conscience.

Those are not the same thing.

Respecting my conscience may mean that you voluntarily limit yourself for my sake. Submitting to my conscience means that you must reach my conclusions before I will accept you. The New Testament teaches us to care deeply about the former. We should be extremely careful about demanding the latter.

And perhaps an even more difficult question needs to be asked.

If I keep moving the conditions of fellowship every time my brother meets them, am I actually seeking reconciliation, or am I searching for a reason to remain divided?

Unity requires humility from everyone involved.

Sometimes the stronger brother must surrender a liberty. Sometimes the weaker brother must resist the temptation to condemn someone whose conscience permits what his own does not. Sometimes both sides must acknowledge that loving one another does not require settling every disagreement.

Paul’s instruction was not merely, “Do not offend your brother.” It was also, “Accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God” (Romans 15:7).

There is an enormous difference between saying, “Brother, I love you enough that I will give this up for your sake,” and responding, “That isn’t enough. You must also admit that I was right.”

The first sounds like sacrifice.

The second sounds much more like a demand for surrender.

If our goal is truly unity, we must be willing to distinguish between what God requires and what we require. Otherwise, we may spend years condemning division while continually creating new conditions that make reconciliation impossible.

Christian unity does not require every Christian to have my conscience.

It requires every Christian to submit to Christ.