“Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarrelling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.” (Romans 14:1- 3)

We live in a generation where many do not have the capacity for disagreement. Instead of welcoming healthy debate and listening to opposing ideas, dissenters are cancelled or silenced. Disagreement is perceived as aggression and gets treated with an equal or elevated level of hostility. Individuals who break the mould with their ideas are characterized as thought terrorists and are threatened with war if they are
to act out on their beliefs. Ironically, those who claim to be most open-minded are the quickest to shut down contrasting opinions. As a result, our society has become divided and cold. Individuals throw themselves into isolation where it is safest. And only a few dare to think for themselves, and even fewer voice their thoughts out loud.

Sadly, the inflexibility of society can sometimes seep into the Church. Although many spiritual principles and truths are simply matters of right and wrong, other complex issues are disputable. Put alternatively, there are biblical issues that are salvation issues, and then there are biblical issues that are not. For instance, as a Church, we hold firmly to the fact that to be saved one must repent and be baptized. (Acts
2:38) But should someone be baptized face-first into the water or backwards? The question of a backward or forward baptism is not clearly laid out in the Bible. Therefore, it is a matter of opinion or preference. Therefore, it is a “disputable matter.”

Personally, I believe that animals will either go to heaven or hell. This is based on God’s words to Noah and his family, “I will demand an accounting from every animal.” (Genesis 9:5) I believe that any animal that sheds human blood will be judged by God, and that is why animals don’t typically attack humans unless they are threatened. However, this is a disputable matter. It is not a salvation issue. You may feel free to disagree with me, as there are probably many others that already do. The point is that we can still have unity in the body of Christ despite having differing opinions on disputable matters. And this leads us to certain important, non-disputable principles that we must accept.

First, unity is different than uniformity. Paul’s charge to the church in Corinth was that they “be perfectly united in mind and thought” so that there would not be any quarrelling among disciples. (I Corinthians 1:10) However, he sharply disagreed with Barnabas about taking Mark along with them on one of his missionary journeys. (Acts 15:39) Did he not practice what he preached? Or was it acceptable for him to have a different opinion on what would be best for his mission team?

The Greek word for “mind” doesn’t imply that everyone must have the same thoughts or opinions but that they will share the same purpose and resolve. For example, imagine three drivers of three different cars driving to a movie theatre to see a movie. All three drivers may take different routes to get there, but their destination and purpose are the same. They may have different opinions and are therefore not
uniform in their thinking. However, they are still unified because they share the same purpose, resolve, intention, and destination.

Secondly, we must distinguish between a conviction and a doctrinal position. While having the correct doctrine is essential for salvation, (I Timothy 4:16) having a conviction is not always a salvation issue. In Moses’ generation, one of the twelve spies sent to spy out the promised land, Caleb, brought back a positive report according to his convictions. (Joshua 14:7) He had faith that God would allow them to conquer the intimidating and opposing forces of Canaan. Unfortunately, ten other spies did not share Caleb’s conviction. Because of their faithlessness in God’s promise, God made them wander the wilderness for forty years before He gave them a second chance to enter the promised land again. Their failure to share in Caleb’s conviction negatively affected them in a big way. But did it result in them no longer being God’s people? No.

Sometimes, convictions in individuals are built through their belief being tested. Like Paul’s preaching to the Thessalonians that came “in the midst of severe suffering,” (I Thessalonians 1:6), the hardship the experienced only solidified Paul’s resolve and conviction. Therefore, he stated to the Church, “our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction.” (I Thessalonians 1:5)

So doctrine can be defined as an indisputable truth, and a conviction can be defined by how much someone believes in a certain truth. We must have deep convictions on the correct doctrine when concerning salvation issues. However, not all convictions are salvation issues. We can wholeheartedly believe that animals will go to heaven or hell, but that doesn’t make it a salvation issue. Furthermore, while failing
to have certain convictions may affect our salvation, that still does not necessarily make them salvation issues. For example, our movement’s conviction is to have a central leadership with a central leader. This is clearly the most obvious leadership structure seen throughout the Bible, (Old and New Testament) and there are several reasons why it is essential. But that doesn’t mean that one has to believe it is the best
church leadership structure for them to be saved. Will it affect them if they don’t? Yes. Like the Israelites in Moses’ time, they may even have to wander through the wilderness of church bureaucracy for forty years until they develop a conviction on it. But they would
still be saved.

Lastly, we must understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance, and when to apply each concept. Sin and false doctrine are not to be tolerated in God’s Kingdom. (I Corinthians 5:11, Revelation 2:20) However, Paul says we need to “accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarrelling over disputable matters.” When it comes to opinion issues or non-salvation issues, the biblical mandate is for us
to accept these differences in each other. But when it comes to salvation issues, or issues that are right or wrong in the Bible, we are not to accept those differences. We are not even to tolerate those differences. We must “expel the wicked person from among [us].” (I Corinthians 5:13)

So in closing, should “disputable matters” matter? No. But, as we mature, we need to learn to distinguish between disputable an indisputable matters, (Hebrews 5:14) and as a Church, we can be “perfectly united in mind and thought.” To God be the glory!

Evan Bartholomew