A Biblical Reflection on Romans 14-15
What would it take to have good conversations in communities marked by real disagreement?
In Romans 14-15, Paul addresses exactly this question. In this section of his letter to the Romans Paul aims to cultivate dialogue that sustains a Christian community experiencing deep disagreements. Paul is actively developing conversations across difference within Roman house churches. His tips for good conversations across disagreement ring true amidst the polarisation that we experience today.
Polarisation in Paul’s Rome
The core conflict involves groups Paul labels the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ – those with differing convictions regarding food and observing certain days. Paul makes it clear that this distinction isn’t about who is right or wrong. Rather, he is describing an asymmetry of power and practice in a specific community.
Paul sets out four pillars of thought that make dialogue possible, even amid real tensions. These principles are foundational to developing ethical agency shaped by belonging to Christ.
- God has the overarching perspective, not individual human beings. We can’t make normative ethical pronouncements because each will account to God (14.10-12). This commitment forces us to slow down judgment, recognizing that ultimate discernment is not an individual responsibility, which frees us to listen and speak constructively.
- All Christians belong to Christ: Our primary identity is found in this shared belonging (14.7-9). We do not live alone – we live together. This shared narrative reframes our identity and agency, anchoring conversations in shared Christian belonging which cannot be undone.
- Conscience matters: Paul insists that each must be fully convinced in their own mind (14.5-6). Group-think is out. Dialogue must be a practice that honours conscience, ensuring space for difference.
- Power ought to yield for the sake of community: This is the heart of the passage. The strong, those with greater freedom, those we might describe as holding privilege, have a responsibility to use their own freedom for the benefit of the weak, those with lesser freedom, those we might describe as holding lived experiences of oppression.
Paul’s instructions to the Romans are highly structured and focused on achieving peace and mutual upbuilding (14.19-15.2). Where privilege functions, Paul advises that people moderate how they express their freedom (15.1-2).
Polarisation Today
When we shift the conversation from meat and holy days to issues like immigration policy, human rights, welfare, war or ecological justice, the stakes are raised. Does the scriptural call to yield and refrain from judgment still apply when disagreements involve ideologies that fundamentally reject the community’s core values of welcome and upbuilding?
In a polarised public debate, the “strong” are not simply those with more knowledge, but those who possess cultural power and institutional trust. The “weak” might be those marginalised by history or cultural narratives, whose distrust of institutions is a rational response to past harm.
When Paul’s principles of listening and power-yielding are brought to bear on contemporary issues they cease to be mere church rules and become public theology: listening, narrating and discerning for the common good.
This leads us directly to the question of dialogue under pressure in the work of Christian coalitions like the JPIT.
If Paul asks the strong to distinguish between harm and discomfort, and yield their freedom for the sake of the other, what is the boundary when we engage with movements that promote outright harm? Consider JPIT’s necessary work in countering the rhetoric and influence of the far right. Ideologies like the far right are often characterized by exclusionary language, the targeting of marginalised communities, and the rejection of shared narrative, which fundamentally break the preconditions for theological dialogue (such as curiosity over certainty and honouring impact – topics that I hope to write more on later – watch this space!).
The challenge of the far right pushes Paul’s ideas to their limit. If dialogue is meant to be ordered toward edification and building up (14.19), how do we respond when an ideology seeks to tear down and divide?
This presents profound questions: Where is dialogue under pressure in our work? Does the biblical call to “receive one another” (15.7) require the same power-yielding from Christians toward groups whose core beliefs actively violate the common good? Or does Paul’s insistence on “building up” define a boundary for dialogue, demanding confrontation rather than concession when confronted with outright harm?
Five Practices for Dialogue in Polarised Times
I would like to suggest that Paul offers us key practices:
Dialogue that honours conscience (14.5–6)
– working actively to create space for difference without dismissal
Dialogue that yields power responsibly (15.1–2)
– those with privilege in a particular area show restraint in discussions around that area so dialogue can continue
Dialogue that distinguishes harm from discomfort (14.13–15)
– protecting the vulnerable from harm is central – discomfort may be inevitable but harm is unacceptable
Dialogue grounded in a shared story (14.7–9)
– belonging to Christ reframes identity and agency – no-one has the right to gatekeep that belonging. Members of the body of Christ can disagree – but we are still part of one body.
Dialogue ordered toward building up (14.19; 15.2)
– this is not about debating, or about who is right or wrong; it is about building each other up regardless of our disagreements.
I hope that these five practices are a helpful starting point for having dialogue in these difficult times. Let me know what you think as I seek to develop these into a toolkit for conversations across disagreement.
