Not every debate is a matter of life and death, argues columnist David Guretzki.
→en français
At a catch-up coffee with a friend, we got into a heated theological argument. Fortunately, our friendship survived, but it reminded me theological disagreement can be hard, especially among friends and family.
I haven’t always played nicely in theological debate. With advanced theological degrees and decades in theological education, I haven’t always loved my theological neighbour well, often looking for victory over mutual building up in love (Ephesians 4:16).
But I’ve matured in at least one way. I’ve realized not every theological debate is a matter of life and death. Knowing this doesn’t circumvent disagreement, but it does help me sort out when and how much theological energy is worth expending.
When we have theological disagreement, it’s good to do an initial assessment on the type or level of doctrinal dispute we’re engaged in.
At the highest level are matters of theological orthodoxy. The word orthodox means right worship and can be best understood as those doctrinal affirmations that speak to the right identification of the one true God worthy of worship.
Theological orthodoxy means agreement with Scripture and the historic Church on at least two things. First, that God is the one creator God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Spirit, and second, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is fully divine and fully human. These are things on which Christians have little theological latitude.
It doesn’t mean people have no religious freedom to disagree on such things, but as C. S. Lewis once suggested, those who deny the Trinitarian nature of God shouldn’t continue to call their teaching Christian.
It’s good to do an initial assessment on the type or level of doctrinal dispute we’re engaged in.
Christians do, however, often disagree on matters of orthopraxy or right practice. Scripture instructs there are right and wrong ways to worship and serve God. While Christians should agree idolatry is unacceptable (1 Corinthians 10:14), we might disagree on, for example, whether corporate worship should only be on Sundays, or whether a church community should baptize infants or only professing believers.
Arguments for these positions can be made from Scripture, but Trinitarian Christians haven’t yet come to agreement on them. Therefore, we must always return to the first question: Are we seeking to serve the one true God, even though we may not agree completely on how that is to be done?
There is a third type of disagreement which theologians have sometimes called adiaphora or matters of indifference. These are practices or beliefs that are neither explicitly commanded nor prohibited by Scripture, but which the Church has often introduced to respond to historical, cultural or practical issues. We often call these disputable matters or matters of conscience.
For example, some churches have adopted formalized liturgies and catechisms which outline how worship services are to be run, and how children and new believers are to be taught. Other churches, however, have rejected the use of formalized prayers and catechisms, often as a corrective to perceived ineffectiveness or past abuses.
This doesn’t mean disputable matters are unimportant or insignificant. On the contrary, in context these teachings and practices usually arise for very good reasons. However, it helps to understand that, as important as they may be to a church tradition, they are not easily settled by appeals to explicit scriptural teaching.
The Apostle Paul speaks about disputable matters already in the Early Church, including food laws or religious observance of special days as examples (Romans 14:2,5). Yes, such matters are theological in nature because they are attempts to rightly serve the one true God. But Paul also insists these are matters of personal conviction.
Note that Paul doesn’t say, “Such things don’t matter.” Instead he insists, “Each should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Romans 14:5) and “Whatever you believe about these things, keep between yourself and God” (Romans 14:22).
Most important of all, when we have strong personal theological convictions, Paul reminds us that the law of love must still prevail. “If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:15).
So on matters pertaining to the identity and nature of God, we must hold fast – there are false teachings that need to be countered for the sake of the glory of God and the gospel (2 Peter 2:1). But on other matters there is theological latitude and freedom for Christians to differ. It is on these matters we must be mature enough to allow for disagreement without the need to break fellowship or the compulsion to theologically destroy our brother or sister.
Making that distinction in the first place, I would argue, would go a long way to preserving and building peace in the Body of Christ.
David Guretzki is the EFC’s president and CEO. Read more of these columns at FaithToday.ca/CrossConnections. Illustration adapted from NA studio.