It has been said that "Experience unites; doctrine divides." Okay, it has been said "Love unites ..." or "Christ unites ..." or "Service unites ...". It's hard to find the exact quote. But we all know the idea. Doctrine divides. And people who use that kind of phrase are not intending a compliment.
Interestingly, it is true that doctrine divides. It divides between truth and falsehood. It divides between orthodoxy and heresy. It divides between right and wrong. And, this division is good, right, and necessary. So if you say "Doctrine divides" in an attempt to demean doctrine, I'd have to say you're not thinking it through. Beyond that, doctrine is biblical. Paul warns, "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom 16:17). One of the prime purposes of the Church is to make mature Christians "so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:14). Timothy stayed in Ephesus to "charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine" (1 Tim 1:3). Why? Because he was "trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine" (1 Tim 4:6). In fact, "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing" (1 Tim 6:3-4). Titus was commanded, "Teach what accords with sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). The Bible, then, is quite happy with doctrine.
Look, doctrine isn't that big of a deal. It is simply principles, positions, or policies. Biblically it is that which is taught. Doctrine, then, is simply the truth of Scripture. It is the body of belief that is Christianity. On what possible basis would someone calling himself a Christian wish to ignore the truth? Indeed, then, if you find people who wish to ignore the truth when we are assured that the Spirit will "lead you into all truth" ... if you find people who teach a different doctrine or create obstacles contrary to sound doctrine, the command is "avoid them". And, in that sense, too, doctrine divides.
But I want to also consider that shady area. (I don't say "gray", as I don't actually believe in "gray". But that's a different topic.) What about, oh, I don't know, Calvinism versus Arminianism? What about the non-essentials? Roman Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine have differences. Would you conclude then (depending on your starting point) that one is not Christian? Or are the differences on matters of non-essentials? And what do you do with non-essentials?
Paul warned the Romans to "watch out for those who cause divisions". That is something different than the division I've already mentioned. Doctrine divides between truth and error. This division divides people. When we're speaking about differences between, say, someone who believes that God chooses whom He will save based on His own good pleasure over against someone who believes that God chooses whom He will saved based on His foreknowledge of their choice, it's true that one or the other is wrong. Is it equally true that there must be division between them? Do we have to separate over that? I think that kind of division is something to avoid.
If you look around, you can find some pretty nasty infighting between Christians that should be united. We are not Christians by means of perfect doctrine (or we would not be Christians). Differences will always exist. Personally, I have no problem fellowshipping with people whose doctrine differs from mine, even if I think they're mistaken. Speaking here about non-essentials, I don't mind at all spending time with someone who differs with me. We're fellow heirs with Christ -- they're just a little confused about the details. (That was intended to be humorous. Please smile.)
There is, biblically and practically, a time for division. We must be "rightly dividing the word of truth". It's important. Orthodoxy is important. Theology is important. We are commanded to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). There are matters on which no compromise is possible. Without certain elements of Christian doctrine it ceases to be Christian. But there is much, much more which doesn't require that rigid stand. Do we really want to create division in the Body of Christ over non-essentials? Do we really need to present disunity to the world over matters that don't rise to the level of absolute necessity? It's silly, I know, but "Can't we all just get along?" Tell me, what do you think is worthy of fighting about?
8 comments:
Stan,
You've touched on another topic that has been on the front of my mind recently. We are told that non-believers will know us (followers of Christ) by how we love one another. One thing I always try to keep in mind when publishing on open venues like blogs is that non-believers are watching how we interact as believers. Even if one claims to be a Christian but is really a CINO as you've described recently, the non-believer probably won't see the interaction as anything but interplay between two Christians. Abusive language, fighting over non-essential themes, and other public displays of contemptuous practice only drive the non-believer away.
I have no problem arguing a point and defending the gospel and the truth, but we must interact, most especially in areas where we disagree in a public forum like blogging, in a respectful and intellectually honest fashion.
As a quick aside, I have a friend in full-time missions and got an opportunity to share a meal with him this weekend, and we discussed this very thing. That most non-believers are attracted to Christians initially by their selflessness in serving. There must be sound doctrine behind that action so that meaningful answers can be given when the relationship is formed and the tough questions come, but all the right answers won't do much good if infighting drives people away.
I know that didn't address your question on what is worth fighting about, but indirectly I think this idea of keeping at the forefront how God and non-believers are looking at what we are doing would serve us well.
Truth.
What I will fight about is truth. Are there any of God's truths that are to small to fight about? Jesus defended every jot and tittle.
What I will not fight about is interpretation. I will *defend* my interpretation ,but I will not *fight* over it.
Obviously the boundaries of this get a bit fuzzy. When I defend betrothal, for example, you may think I am defending my 'interpretation' of Scripture... and you may even be right. But if it *is* truth, however small, then I need to defend it.
Anyone who's spent any time at my blog would notice that one subject continues to appear, that being the subject of homosexuality. Part of it has to do with the possible negative impact on our nation should it become a non-issue (or more accurately, that there is never a discussion of ANY impact), and part of it has to do with the push toward inclusiveness in the church in a manner that suggests this behavior is no longer sinful, or not sinful within a quasi-marital context.
But this issue is also one of proper interpretation and THAT becomes devisive as two or more sides argue over what is actually meant by the ancient languages as well as what is still applicable in today's world.
If we are to follow Christ, on what terms do we attempt to do so? My "progressive" opponents bring a lot of ambiguity to the answer. The ambiguity allows for much that seems to me to be proof of following Christ on their own terms rather than His. What then is the new seeker to understand about living a Christian life? Obviously an "anything goes" type of religion that I think is contrary to the truth.
I agree that disagreements can turn off potential believers. But, if they are so easily turned away without trying to learn what the fuss is all about, should we really be all that concerned? Frankly, a blog isn't a great place to learn about Christianity if the reader is going to forget that Christianity doesn't mean its adherents are perfect.
There's no doubt that civility is sometimes lost at my blog. But some of us have been debating (arguing) for several years. There's a familiarity and a definite sense of knowing what the other guy is trying to do by his debate style that strains anyone's ability for toleration. That's just human nature and frustration. Yet, we go on and the fact that, unlike other blogs, no one is banned and the debate rages on should account for something.
Jeremy,
You are the "headline" of my blog tomorrow.
Von,
The distinction I was noting was between "rightly dividing" the Word which will cause differences in perceptions and actually dividing between people. Would you actually divide from believers who disagree (as an example ... since you used it) on your view of betrothal?
Marshall,
Believe me I know about the frustration of fighting with the same people over the same issues for so long. I draw a line (because the Bible draws a line) between separating from those who are ... oh, how does the NASB put it? ... "so-called brothers". Those who are causing division not between truth and error (a good division), but between God and people and between people and people (bad division). The latter type Paul says to avoid.
Stan,
It was interesting because I was asked almost this same question this weekend at church.
Much, for me, depends on the 'why'. If someone says to me, "Well, Betrothal may be what Scripture teaches but..." then, for me, they have crossed the Rubicon. They are no longer willing to, as you put it, 'contend for the faith once delivered'. They have put something else in front of God as the one they will serve.
This comes in many softer ways, which need to be more dug out than actively 'resisted'. Someone who says, "Well, but we will never convince anyone of that" or "but my children would not agree".
IOW if you took the very smallest (and, obviously, I don't think betrothal, or sodomy, for that matter, are among the 'smallest' of truth's in Scripture) of the Biblical truths, the very least jot or tittle... if someone actively, positively, and definitely resists and defends their resistance to that truth then they have, at least for that issue, ceased to act like a Christian.
We do not need to be always right, we will not be always right, but we do need to be always reforming, always open to God's truth.
Does that answer the question better?
Someone said something to me the other day concerning something of no consequence, then followed it up with these words: "but that's just my opinion", to which I responded, "well it's either true or it isn't".
He laughed and looked at me as if a light bulb came on in his head. He actually got it.
Gray, for many I believe, is a strong tower, a place of refuge, and the wicked run into it and they feel safe. And from out of this refuge are lobbed accusations of being too "black and white". Oh to be... or not to be... black and white, that is the question.
Dan: "Gray, for many I believe, is a strong tower, a place of refuge, and the wicked run into it and they feel safe."
Back when I was teaching adult Sunday School I wanted to do a series on "Living Black and White in a Grayscale world". In printers, there is no "gray". The way they achieve gray is to put dots of black at intervals. The more spread out the black, the lighter the gray. I think life is a lot more like that than the grayscale people want to admit. Things really are black or white. Sometimes determining which may not be so easy, but it doesn't mean it's not so.
ROTL Danj
Post a Comment