Is Christian worship a "non-essential"? (Romans 14:5)

Many modern day "Evangelical" Protestants consider Romans 14:5 as the chief proof text for the notion there can be "non-essential" doctrines within Christianity. While there are practices throughout Christian history that can be considered "non-essentials," it is more problematic to apply this to the category of "doctrine," since doctrine implies essential teaching. The logic that certain Protestants use typically reduces down to making almost nothing an "essential" and thus stripping Christianity of anything solid that gives it shape. But when read carefully, we see here that Paul was speaking in a relatively narrow range of 'liberty' in Christian disciplines, especially as these were tied to one's former life and thus they had a certain sensitivity to them, not merely a personal preference. In fact, Paul refers to these people who need special care as those who are "weak in faith," but didn't mean it as an insult, just that they were not mature enough to thrive, which all Christians are called to aspire to.

Let's look at the passage of Chapter 14 of Romans:

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions [Greek: "scruples" / "doubts"]. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. ... 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

The verse "one person esteems one day better than another" is commonly taken to mean that when it comes to the day of worship, that is a "non-essential" doctrine, and that it is really the freedom of each individual Christian to decide whether they want to worship alone or with a community, or on Sunday or on Saturday, etc. With this mindset, these Protestants "conclude" that a true Christian could just sleep in on Sunday and not have to worship in any formal sense at all. These Protestants claim that 14:5 proves that the Church, clergy, etc, cannot even set rules/standards such as how to worship, nor set rules on fasting, etc. But was Paul really giving each Christian such "liberty"? Only a surface level and non-contextual reading could lead to such an "interpretation," while careful look at Paul's language will see he's speaking very carefully and pastorally.

As noted above, notice that Paul is speaking of those "weak in faith" (14:1a) and with "scruples" (14:1b). This means Paul is not advocating for a mature living out of Christianity, but rather a more accommodating form. The reference to "the weak person eats only vegetables" (14:2) is certainly to refer to those who are distressed about foods that have been sacrificially offered to idols (1 Cor 8:1-13; Rom 14:13-15; Acts 15:29; 21:25). It would seem this would refer most likely to Jewish Christians who are especially sensitive to anything unclean or part of pagan worship. It is always understood that flesh meat is superior to vegetables, so flesh meat would have been the choice food to offer to your gods, while offering vegetables would be seen as an insult. This hearkens back to when Abel offered God meat while Cain offered God a salad, which is obviously very insulting (Gen 4:3-5). Thus, vegetables are all that is left for these weaker people. A person who "eats only vegetables" is not a mature person if they are scared of meat. Yet it can be easy to mock or judge someone with such weakness, so we must take care not to, especially if it could lead them away from Christ. In fact, the strong warnings about not causing others to fall and being judged by God for how you went about this is a strong proof against Paul advocating for "non essential" matters.

Similarly, after discussing the meat sensitivity, and almost setting the stage for the more sensitive issue, Paul then turns to another (more) contentious issue. When Paul speaks of those who "esteem one day over another" (14:5) and they do so "in honor of the Lord" (14:6), this can only be referring to Jewish Christians promoting the Sabbath day. The Sabbath was a special conventional sign between God and the Israelites (see HERE and elsewhere on this blog), not meant for all mankind, and was not something easy to let go of if you grew up observing the Sabbath every week. Yet in light of the arrival of Christ, the sign of the Sabbath had been fulfilled (Col 2:16-17). Thus, Paul says this should not be pushed on others. While it is widely thought that this passage refers to the "day of worship," as we learned in the three part Sabbath series (HERE), the Sabbath day was about "resting" and not about "worship". Thus, this passage is not even giving the possibility of each person deciding how to worship, especially when worship was already discussed under the "food sacrificed to idols" (to which Paul is clear false worship is forbidden). Lastly, the language of "observing/esteeming it in honor of the Lord" is a strange way to refer to making worship optional, thus confirming the Sabbath is only about a day of resting.

The most important detail to keep in mind is that the context is of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians having to live together under the New Covenant. Thus, the "loose reading" of the Evangelical Protestants is quite strange, for that indicates Paul was actually giving everyone an excuse to live segregated by going off and doing their own thing. On the contrary, Paul wanted the Church to be a united visible body, and thus Paul was not advocating some unlimited freedom in (so called) "non-essential doctrines". Interestingly, from the earliest days of the Church we see reference to this, such as in the Didache (90AD), which in section 6 brings up the cautions of "food sacrificed to idols" issue, but at the same time is very strict and firm on how worship and fasting and church order needs to be maintained, never suggesting a free-for-all.

It is often forgotten how easy it is for 'weaker' Christians to fall away, especially new converts, when they are unduly confronted with harsh treatment from other Christians. That's why I have written before how we must take care not to do things that can trouble or scandalize others, especially those weak in the faith, because of how often they can end of leaving the Church. This includes the frequent gossiping of the dirty laundry in the Church (which I've discussed HERE), where we do not have some unlimited freedom to post or talk about whatever we feel like.