"In Matters Of Opinion -- Liberty"
In discussing the subject of Unity during the long period of study in connection with the division in the "body of Christ" during last half of the past century, the principle loyal saints endeavored to set forth as a rule of guidance, was, that "in matters of faith there must be unity, in matters of opinion, let there be liberty, but in all things there should be love, or charity." This principle is so self-evidently safe and sound and scriptural, that it ought not to need argument. Where God has spoken, either by plain statement, necessary inference, or by apostolic example, we must accept what God has said, and there is therefore no room for any disagreement between those who profess to believe. There must be unity where God has spoken. And, it is also just as plainly taught in God's word that we should "love the brethren". Also, "love your enemies" is plainly enjoined upon the disciples of Christ. In the fourteenth chapter of Romans, it is plainly and pointedly enjoined upon us, that we be guided by love in dealing with brethren who are "opinionated" regarding their eating meats. Love for the brother who is so opinionated will cause one to not "set at naught the brother" who is of that persuasion, and who is in the scriptures called "weak". And "love" for the brother will prompt one to not condemn (judge) the brother who does those things that are not in accord with one's own opinions, though the things might not, of themselves be of any importance, one way or another. In other words, in matters that are purely indifferent the opinions of man may be used to cause division in the "body of Christ", if "love" is not exercised to avoid such division.
But, now, about the caption of the article: In matters of opinion, let there be liberty. What does it mean? Evidently, this passage in the 14th chapter of Romans clearly teaches, that one may hold an opinion relative to such matters that are indifferent, without injury to himself or others. Thus, one is to have the liberty to hold his opinion in such case. This principle may be illustrated by a wide range of illustration. In my old home church, to my certain knowledge, there were a few members who had the opinion that instrumental music in the worship was to be desired. It was their opinion that it was entirely scriptural. So far as I know, if they should have been in a community where such music was employed in the worship, they would have participated in that worship. Yet, so long as they held that opinion to themselves, and did not try to impose it upon others, they were not condemned by the brethren for holding said opinion. They were granted that "liberty of opinion".
Certain ones also held the opinion that Missionary. Societies are scriptural and right, and therefore useful in spreading the gospel. But, they were not condemned by the brethren for holding that opinion, so long as they held it to themselves. That is what was meant by "liberty of opinion". That is what the loyal souls amongst the pioneer preachers of the Restoration of the past century meant by the use of that statement. It was clear to every one of them that when one became so opinionated that he would press his opinion upon others to the disruption of the peace and harmony of the church, he was a "factionist". To the last man of the loyal pioneer preachers, they regarded it a sacred and solemn duty to oppose every effort made to bind the opinions of men upon the heart and conscience of the brethren.
It is true that those who pressed their opinions upon the brethren, in the development of the great apostasy of the past century, to the extent that division resulted, endeavored to place the blame for the division upon those who opposed their ungodly activities. The point where division is inevitable is where one will push and press his opinion upon others to the extent that one must violate his conscience, or withdraw from those who would cause him to sin. If one regards a certain thing as sinful, and another, or others are so determined that it must be accepted by the church, that they are going to have it any way, the one or more who regard the thing as sinful can not accept it, then division is absolutely inevitable. Of course, if there is no opposition to the introduction of those things based upon opinion, there will be no division. The whole church, in that case apostatizes. But, the question arises again: Who is responsible for the division, when it occurs? Before the divisive thing was introduced, there was peace and harmony in the church. Removal of the divisive thing from the churches will make the way for peace and harmony again. There is need however, for repentance and prayer, and confession of sins, upon the part of those who have pressed their opinions to the division of the church. Whether that "divisive thing" be instrumental music in the worship, a Missionary Society, Herald of Truth Missionary Society, Gospel Press Society, or a Benevolence Society, or anything else that is based upon human opinion, the principle is the same. No, "Liberty of opinion" does not mean that any one has the right to press his opinion to the disruption of the peace and harmony of the church. And should it apply to things that are indifferent in themselves, then one is not entitled to press his opinions to the extent that it causes division. "In all things, love". That will cause peace to prevail, even where the "opinions" concern matters that are "indifferent."