Christian Disagreement

I had a good talk recently with a friend of mine about life and a little about doctrine. In the conversation we discussed some about how we ought to handle differing views within Christendom. In fact, it's a theme that I feel has been coming up a bit recently for me, and so I thought it might be a good topic to cover briefly.

Christian theology can be broken down into three (or more) levels of what you could call "importance". I'm classifying these somewhat based on my own opinions, so I'm sure you may have some differing views, and that's ok.

First are the primary doctrines; the things that basically determine if you're even in the faith or not. Think the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the gospel itself, inspiration of Scripture, the return of Christ, etc.

Next are secondary issues. These include things like certain aspects of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), certain views of Scripture such as views on translations and the literalness of Genesis (though I believe that's still a hugely important matter!), and ecclesiology (how to do church, leadership, etc.)

Then there's tertiary issues. These are things like views on alcohol or tattoos, music, some elements of church style, things like that. I'd include the more extraneous aspects of end times in this category too.

It's not to say that not all of theology is important, but some are more critical than others. If you deny the deity and humanity of Christ, then you can hardly call yourself a Christian. If you have a tattoo, or you think they're sinful, well, that's not going to keep you in or out of the faith.

It is important for us to recognize these differences as it is very easy to be ready to die on the hill of a tertiary issue, and this can cause unnecessary division within the body, something that Paul repeatedly warns against.

"being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Ephesians 4:3, read 1-6 for fuller context.

I see on both sides of the Calvinism and Arminianism debate, people that are vehemently opposed. Yet George Whitfield (a Calvinist) and John Newton (an Arminianist) were friends. Can we deny either had a successful ministry used of God? Is it an important issue? Absolutely! And one I would not call tertiary, or even necessarily secondary at times. But there are right ways and wrongs ways to deal with debate.

Just like you're allowed to like a different sports team, or have a favorite movie, you're also allowed a degree of Christian liberty. As long as it's not sinful or against the essential aspects of the faith, then we just do our best to try to follow as closely to Scripture as we can, and enjoy the diversity that takes places.

Again, it's not to say certain things aren't still important even if they aren't a 'gospel issue'. I just want to point out that we must approach these differences with a level of Christian grace, not just anger. Error? Absolutely, we must fight it. I guess it's a fine line, one we must deal with prayerfully.

The idea of a literal Genesis is one I've dived into in previous posts, and one I that if you get wrong, I believe has massive ramifications. If you deny a literal Genesis, you can certainly still be saved. But I personally believe that presents huge issues with how one understands the rest of Scripture.

End times views can have their extremes. This podcast I think does a great job of looking at some of those issues, and does so in a way that is gracious towards both sides.

In fact, I think that's really the key: grace. It's not about being right or winning an argument, it's about the unity of the body and loving others, all while standing firm on the conviction of Scripture; a conviction based on proper handling of the word.

Lastly, I think church history serves as a great example for us, one that should burst the bubble of our pride, thinking only our way is the right way.

Much of doctrine has had to develop over the years as the church has been attacked by heresy. As each heresy has come, the church has had to be more precise with its doctrine. This is actually good for the church.

As such we should realize that not all Christians have had the knowledge or access to information that we do now, and yet, guess what: they were still saved.

Does this mean there's no time or place for discussion or disagreement? Again, that's not what I'm calling for. But if one is a true believer in Christ, then we must remember they are our brother or sister in the faith as we deal with those differences. Someone to win over, not an enemy to be cut down.

In other words, let's be willing to fight on the hill of the essentials. Structure within a church certainly relies on our agreement on primary as well as some secondary issues. But within the global church let us have the ability to disagree with grace and love for one another, seeking to understand, not just try to win a fight.

Because aren't all true believers in this thing together?