In the King James Bible, Paul writes to Timothy that we should be "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). Of course, in order to properly understand that, we have to know what "rightly dividing" is ... in the King James language. In the Greek, the word means literally "to make straight" (which I won't be so foolish as to suggest means "Stop people from being queer"). In the King James English, it was the way they would say "rightly handling" or "rightly conveying." (The English language has changed in 500 years.) There are those today who think that the instruction is to divide between Paul's writings and the rest of Scripture (known as "Pauline Dispensationalism"). That's not the meaning. Some understand it as a command to divide with other Christians who don't understand Scripture as you do. But Paul wrote, "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor 1:10). That would suggest that there was no good reason to "rightly divide" from fellow believers. But that can't be right because we also read, "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11). That "factious man" in the King James is "an heretick" because the Greek word behind it is αἱρετικός -- "aihretikos" -- from which we get our word, "heretic." It means "schismatic"; something or someone that causes ... division. So we need to aim for unity, but there are cases in which we need to divide from some who are causing division. That's exactly what Paul said (Rom 16:17). When, then, is that necessary? When should we "rightly divide" with other believers?
There are dangers on both sides of that question. If we minimalize biblical doctrine toward the "never divide" end (as is the current tendency -- "Can't we all just get along?"), doctrine becomes meaningless. Truth becomes relative. It is a position that holds that there is no actual truth, and that's a direct contradiction of Christ (John 14:6; John 17:17). On the other end you can bring division for the smallest difference. I heard someone say, "I won't read the ESV because they don't capitalize pronouns for God." Really? Capitalization of pronouns for God were not in the original text, don't exist in most languages, and is rarely used today in English anywhere. The King James Bible doesn't do it. But, hey, it's worth dividing over, right? So we're back to the command to avoid division, recognizing that there are times when we mustn't and times when we must. The trick is in recognizing the importance of the doctrine at hand. If we disagree (for instance) on whether or not Christ died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor 15:1-19), Scripture says, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17). That is a doctrinal issue that divides between Christianity and not Christianity. On the other hand, if we disagree on whether or not the Rapture will occur before the Great Tribulation, in the middle of the Great Tribulation, or at the end of the Great Tribulation, what essential doctrine of the faith is affected? None. Division on a tertiary (or lower) point is ... pointless.
We are called (repeatedly) to find unity -- a common purpose, first and foremost, and common doctrine. If God's Word is truth (John 17:17), there is truth, and we should be pursuing that truth. On the other hand, we are called to reject and withdraw from someone who causes division by rejecting the faith. We need to know, then, the gravity of the question we're discussing. Does it impact the fundamental structure of the faith? Or is it just an ancillary doctrine that has no bearing on the faith? I would suggest that too many on both sides of the question -- "Be more lenient" or "Shun the offender" -- don't consider this. Instead, they respond emotionally to an assault on the doctrines they've been taught, perhaps incorrectly, without considering the ramifications. There is a time to "rightly divide," but I don't think we think about that much and I think that causes problems -- in both directions -- for God's people.
4 comments:
And we can't forget 1 Cor. 11:19 "for as there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." True doctrine will show itself in the divisions made. But as you say, we must be wise about what we are dividing over. The Reformation would be an example of good division because it was over the authority of Scripture and the means of salvation, 2 things that is got wrong will lead to damnation.
I agree that it is important to practice “theological triage”--prioritizing biblical teaching into tiers ranging from “essential” to “nonessential” doctrines. Knowing which issues fall into each category requires discernment and some study, but once that is determined, the adage, “in necessary things, unity; in uncertain things, liberty; in all things, charity” can be observed. I think it is best to seek a thorough, overall knowledge of the Bible’s contents, rather than focus on a “pet” topic disproportionally; thus, time and maturity in the faith will bring balance when “rightly dividing” truth from error within the one shared faith.
I have a tendency, I suppose, to "pet topics," but usually because they are pressing topics. I wouldn't, for instance, have written much about "same-sex mirage" prior to the advent of such a travesty.
Oh, yes, I have a few “pet topics” as well (not sure it that’s noticeable or not through my commenting :). I believe that once one has a good general knowledge of the faith, the Holy Spirit will lay certain issues on our hearts--often aligning with our spiritual gifting and personal experiences. I was thinking about how some people will be very vocal on a particular issue while being generally uninformed on the most basic aspects of Christianity. Very much out of balance, it seems to me--and certainly a point you made well in your post.
Post a Comment