Conscience, Division, and the Call to Love

What the past can teach us about love in the present.

Yesterday, in response to my post, someone on Facebook wrote:

What about the saint who conscientiously cannot sing with an instrument? How is it possible to worship with “one voice” in that case when others sing with the instrument?

The problem is not just preference. It is that instrumental music changes the form of worship. Everyone agrees singing without an instrument is acceptable (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), but not everyone can, in good conscience, add the instrument. One hundred thirty years ago, when advocates pressed their way, they ignored the consciences of brothers and sisters. That left many unable to worship with them (Romans 14:23). Division came because some insisted on an addition that others could not share.

This is why, in 1906, the churches that insisted on instrumental music became known as the Christian Churches, while those who continued to sing a cappella were mainly known as the churches of Christ. Since that time, there have been further divisions within the Christian Church itself that I don’t have space here to address. But today, there are many other issues within that fellowship that members of the churches of Christ could not conscientiously support.

We saw something similar in the 1950s institutional battles. It was not enough to say, “We can all support an orphanage privately.” Churches had to be pressed into it collectively. That left many unable to participate without violating conscience (Romans 14:13). Again, fellowship was fractured.¹

Paul reminds us in Romans 14:19, “So then, let us pursue what promotes peace and what builds up one another.” When we insist on practices that others cannot accept, we create barriers to fellowship. But when we choose the path that honors the weaker conscience, we preserve unity and show love. The strong are called to bear with the weak (Romans 15:1–2), not to trample them. This principle applies to many issues beyond instruments and institutions—it’s about how we treat one another in all matters of difference.

Even though these divisions cut deep, we must not forget: we are still blood-bought brethren (Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 6:20). Instead of denying each other’s existence, we should seek one another out with love (John 13:34-35), building relationships, and trying to heal division. Sadly, most of the time, the opposite has happened. Both groups assume the worst of each other and point to the most extreme examples to characterize all the brethren in said group.

The result? Harsh caricatures. One side says the other doesn’t care about Bible authority. The other says its opponents are narrow, old-fashioned, and bound by opinions. And the cycle continues.

True unity is not pretending we agree on everything, nor is it forcing everyone into the same mold. It is a shared devotion to Christ above all else, a willingness to love despite differences, and a commitment to keep talking instead of walking away. Jesus prayed for His followers to be one “so that the world may believe” (John 17:21). That means the way we handle our disagreements is itself a witness to the world.

What I have tried to press in these articles is not a denial of our differences, but a call to examine our attitudes. Paul wrote, “As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18). And again: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). How we treat each other in the middle of disagreement matters just as much as the disagreement itself.

1. I do not intend to get into an argument over who caused the division. After almost 75 years, that doesn’t matter anymore. What matters now is how this generation and those to come choose to respond and work together in matters where agreement is found and healing.