Romans 14: A Presuppositional approach - “When you need it, you can’t use it.”

In another thread (Christ Anderson’s book), Romans 14 came up. That passage commands unity. It’s meaning is important in the schism-vs-fellowship question.

In the other thread, Larry said:

It seems to me to be pretty clear Romans 14 is addressing things that are acceptable to God but things which some Christian’s conscience forbids them because they wrongly believe it is sin.
…
Romans 14 makes it a command to accept and not to judge. I don’t think that is a maybe. It is a duty.
…
[The weak brother], for example, had a duty to accept in love those who differ, to be kind and gentle (2 Tim 2:24). And everyone else has a duty to accept [him] in love and to be kind. Because no one here is the Master that we answer to [clearly a Rom14 ref]. We can debate the specifics and allow for Christians to differ with us.

This is, I think, the most common view of Romans 14. There is evidence in Romans 14 that contradicts it, but let’s look at from a presuppositional standpoint. Let’s assume those statements above are true and then see how it does or doesn’t make sense when we try to use Romans 14.

It feels rude to talk about an SI member, so let’s consider an editorial from the 1860s. This man’s issue is about whether an organ (a “kist o' whistles”) should be used in church worship.

We must not judge of the number of the rioters from the noise they make, especially when their sweet voices are assisted by barrel-organs and by trumpets of titanic dimensions. Even the opponents of the innovations in worship, notwithstanding their zeal, have arrived at a solution of the difficulty which is timid, and not likely to be pacific. Had they condemned the innovations, they might have crushed a perilous movement in the bud, for the champions of such things rarely have courage to defend them at much risk of purse or person. They have declared that a congregation may innovate to any extent within we know not what bounds, provided the presbytery do not interpose its veto. Have they not thus thrown the torch of discord into every presbytery and synod of the Church of Scotland? There is something exceedingly plausible in the policy of toleration, and it imposes on many persons not deficient in intelligence. If a congregation wishes to employ instrumental music in the worship of God, why should it not be permitted?' There is another question: Suppose that I am a weak brother; having somehow failed to be carried along with the progress of the age, I have a conscientious objection to the 'kist o' whistles,' like the benighted men from whom I trace my ecclesiastical pedigree; in short, that I consider the use of instrumental music in the worship of God to be a sin, because it is not commanded in His word? You must see, then, that although I may have neither the will nor the power to hinder the congregation of which I am a member from using an organ, I am by its introduction virtually expelled from the membership of the congregation, since I cannot join in its worship. Do the innovators mean this? Do they mean, for example, to drive out from the communion of the Church of Scotland all who are conscientiously opposed to the use of the organ?
“Sinclair” (I googled common 1860 names in Scotland)
The United Presbyterian Magazine, Vol IX, William Oliphant and Co., 1865, p. 334.

Note that he says, “[Maybe] I am a weak brother; having somehow failed…”
In this thread, please assume that Sinclair is indeed a “weak brother” in the area of the organ. That means Sinclair genuinely, but mistakenly, believes an organ is evil. He sees this as the biblical and logical conclusion, but he is wrong.

Most likely, Sinclair does not agree he is weak.
He does not believe that he is wrong. He believes his views on music are Biblical and logical. He does not agree that the organ is a Romans 14 issue. To agree with that would be to admit that God accepts the organ. Instead, he sees it as something God has condemned.

As Sinclair’s pastor, maybe you can’t convince him he’s wrong. Can you call him to obey the Romans 14 commands for the weak? As Larry said, “I don’t think that is a maybe. It is a duty.” The point of the Romans 14 commands is to help unity and mutual edification. Can it deliver that? It presumes to accomplish that partly through commands given to, and obeyed by, the weak brother. So the ability of Romans 14 to do its work depends on weak brothers knowing they are weak.
As Fee said, in spite of 1 Corinthians 8-10, the battles rage on, usually over what constitutes adiaphora. He will argue that the organ is NOT a Romans 14 issue. It’s clear sin and others are failing.

To the extent that Sinclair has influence, he will persuade others to his ideas. If his influence is small, he will just grumble. If large, if he’s a baptist pastor, perhaps schism. I say schism Because we have agreed that he’s weak and that his duty is to accept others.

What if Sinclair knows that he is weak?
Is this really possible?
Sinclair genuinely, but mistakenly believes an organ is evil. He believes he’s right.
He also believes that to be weak is to be wrong. How can he believe he’s wrong and right?

As his pastor, there is no path to applying Romans 14 that doesn’t include convincing Sinclair that God approves of the organ.

------
The conclusion, as I see it, is this. If we presuppose that "weak"="wrong" Romans 14 becomes unusable. One of these will be true:
- The weak admits he's weak (wrong) and doesn't even want to judge or cause schism.
- The weak doesn't admit he's weak and refuses to let Romans 14 apply to his case.
In other words, whenever you need Romans 14, you can't use it.