In an effort to re-direct the conversation in a more productive direction (if only for a moment) check out this fascinating article about fundamentalist churches and the people who shape their thought. Please read the whole thing, but this is the premise from which his conclusions follow:
But it can be dangerous to be a fundamentalist.
We tend to exaggerate differences and distinctions in order to provide justification for our group’s existence.
We also tend to see “holiness†and “rightness†in terms of the doctrines that set us apart from other Christians, rather than the beliefs we hold in common with other Christians that set us apart from the world.
And here is one of the key conclusions the author comes to:
We should not locate our Christian identity in what separates us from other believers, but in the gospel that unites us with other believers, the gospel that calls us out of the world to serve the world.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
18 Comments(+Add)
That’s a great article.
I think that bickering about doctrine is so tempting and easy to do because it makes one feel like he or she is actually doing something important for Christ. In reality, it generates a lot more heat than light.
I think of it like this. In the NFL, the officials do probably get together every so often and discuss the rule book. They decide which rules are essential, which have outlived their usefulness, and what needs to be added. This all well and good, but if there weren’t any actual games on Sundays, it would be pointless. That’s kind of the way I feel about doctrine. If it’s not spurring us on to love God and love our neighbors, it’s pointless. It won’t matter a bit what we believed about things like women pastors if we don’t take time to notice the struggling single mom next door.
I know that the fundamentalist answer to this will be that I am creating a false dichotomy. My answer would be that I’m not saying doctrine isn’t important. Just like you couldn’t play a football without a set of rules, you can’t really live a Christian life without a set of standard beliefs. However, it just seems that focusing on the rulebook is rather pointless if it doesn’t make any difference in the way the game is played.
His article is well written, however, he assumes that the disagreements do not include any part of important doctrines. Today some of the doctrines are at least being chewed on the edges and some times questioned in their entirety.
I believe that in the future division is inevitable and one of the challenges will be to conduct ourselves with humility and love. There are issues, that do not include the central ones he lists, that are still of such importance that it will divide us.
And I agree with Phil, the two greatest dangers are one group blinded to their doctrinal departure while the other group is blinded to their pride. There is still a lost world that needs Christ who know nothing of these battles.
It is unfortunate, but division is necessary and will become more so as time goes on and the foundation is worn down still further.
I wonder what would have happened if the early church had taken the approach that unity was more important than truth?
How many places can you find in the NT where allowances were made for false teachings?
How many of the epistles deal with error creeping into the church – perhaps seemingly innocent at first?
Instead of compromising truth, why not simply accept the truth and unite from there?
Alright Paul C, accept the truth and quit compromising. Just admit that I’m right, you’re wrong and there won’t be any need for compromise and division.
Paul,
Tim kind of hinted at it, but who gets to decide what truth is? I think your contrasting of truth and unity is a false dichotomy. If Christians can’t live in unity, then I question their grasp of the truth.
Paul said that without love everything else is worthless. If we can’t love one another as Jesus prayed for us to than it seems we still need to work at that most basic of truths.
I guess it all comes down to this. Who do we say Jesus is? If we can agree on that point I think unity will come from that point. The early church spent a lot of timing debating that very question. There were some skirmishes about keeping Jewish customs and such, but those paled compared with that question. Unity was based on their knowledge and understanding of Christ, not agreement in every issue. Even Peter and Paul were able to look past their difference with each other for the good of the Gospel. They didn’t continue fighting with each other until one relented.
My point exactly… We have to face the fact that there will always be division, as there has always been. “Fuzzy” faith, which increasingly seems to be the order of the day for many, pleads for acceptance and tolerance, as long as we can unite on the “basics”.
The problem here is that this is nowhere borne out in scripture at all.
Why is there always the presupposition that those who hold to certain biblical principles must also be Pharisees and legalists and fundamentalists? Why can’t adherence to strong Biblical truths go hand-in-hand with the fruit of the Spirit as well?
Phil, good points. But I am not disqualifying the importance of love and humility, which are – as you correctly state – absolutely critical. What I am challenging is the thought that because these 2 are so crucial, all else doesn’t matter. That is not scriptural at all.
Peter and Paul did have a fallout (read Galatians – though I am not using this to justify arguments). But Paul was very direct and forthright. In the end, we know they resolved their differences because of Peter’s reference of the “beloved brother Paul’s” writings.
Unity is not unity if it is built on false concepts. It’s called a glass house.
Can you answer the questions I asked above?
Paul,
Are all Christian doctrines “first order” doctrines?
That’s what I think of when I hear “basics”…not something dumbed down, but properly understood dogmas for essential Christian identity…
I think the division comes when people elevate second-order issues into first-order litmus tests of faith.
Thoughts?
I don’t think disagreement over 2nd order teaching means “false teaching” is at stake.
Do you?
nc – I appreciate the question, but I think this would lead to a conversation down a rabbit hole (I’m learning to avoid these as per the discussion on coarse language).
I think this comment on the blog in reference should give cause for concern (as it’s the perception of someone who read the blog):
Travis said:
Wow, this is the most intelligent quote I have seen in a long time. It should be the posterboard quote of the movement to reunite Protestants into the Catholic Church.
My point is, you don’t have to be arrogant, self-righteous, Pharisaical and so on (though you will definitely be labelled as such) in order to retain your faith in Biblical teachings.
A lot of the arguments pleading for tolerance and acceptance, as long as we all believe in Jesus, are based on complete error.
What do you think Paul was referring to when he said, “the devil is transformed into an angel of light and his ministers as the ministers or righteousness”? Of course they were preaching “Jesus”.
How about Peter’s reference to how people “twist” Paul’s writings “as they do the other scriptures”. Were they preaching Jesus? of course – but with a twist.
Why did Paul lambast Hymaneus and Philetus for a simple little (sarcasm) oversight in their doctrine?
Doctrine is absolutely important.
It doesn’t mean I should become arrogant about it, but it should be the foundation of my faith, built on scripture.
That’s really not true at all. You’ve got Paul’s discussion of freedom in regards to eating meat sacrificed to idols. As well as labeling the resurrection of first importance.
Because we don’t believe they’re Biblical principles, and mostly get really irritated when man made laws are added to the gospel, kind of like Paul did when Judaizers moved into Galatia.
A question I’d like answered is why there is a presupposition that those who hold to to certain biblical principles are accused of not believing the Bible or even are Christians?
Paul,
To answer your questions:
1. I don’t assume that all Fundamentalists are pharisees, and I don’t think being more conservative makes one a legalist. Most of my family are quite conservative – my dad is an A/G pastor and we never had any alcohol, ever. I didn’t see a movie in a theater until I was 18. I didn’t go to school dances. Yet my parents were not legalists. I had quite a bit of freedom growing up. For instance, I never had a curfew.
So I don’t make that assumption. I only assume people are pharisees when they start acting like one.
2. Similiar answer as to number 1. I’ve known many very conservative people who exhibited the fruits of the Spirit.
What you said about Peter and Paul illustrates my point. They probably had some disagreements about some issues still, but their love for each other was more important than them.
Yes, Phil. As I said earlier, I agree love is the critical thing here. But with love, there is also correction, otherwise it is not really love. Paul and Peter did not just “agree to disagree.” Somewhere along the line, the issues were worked out. Paul might have matured and perhaps Peter saw his error.
I appreciate your views and balance on judging those who adhere to biblical teachings and hold them as important (the word fundamentalist always makes me smile as it usually means “someone who actually believes what what they say they believe”).
Tim, not too sure about what you’re talking about in regards to the “resurrection”. Please clarify.
PS: this is where discussions on unity instead of truth (or truth in the background normally lead):
http://samirselmanovic.typepad.com/faith_house
I think the whole concern over painting all fundamentalists as legalists, etc. is dishonest.
No has said they think that.
But the people “who the shoe fits for” are the ones I think get bent out of shape…
just my opinion.
Paul C,
I’m not saying that first order doctrines aren’t worth having an argument over. I just think linking things like music styles, wearing jeans, having chairs instead of pews, etc. are not on par with orthodox christology or trinitarian dogma…
It appears that a false dichotomy between truth and unity is being presented as if they were mutually exclusive.
The original blog was very good, particularly when it espoused that some wish to be known for what they oppose.
Joy anyone?
Neil S.
“unity at all costs” is something that has plagued the charismatic wing of the Church for years; I blogged about it a couple of days ago.
Doctrine and praxis (based on doctrine) is absolutely essential.