Navigating Theological Differences
You ever wonder why there are so many different denominations? There is the Fellowship Baptist, the Associate Baptists, the North American Baptist…and that’s just the Baptist! Why do these different associations exist? Typically, it's due to differences in doctrine and practice.
Doctrinal differences are inevitable among believers. They occur on a macro scale denominationally and on a micro scale between believers rubbing shoulders in the same pew. Different perspectives on issues such as baptism or eschatology are just a few examples of these inevitable differences among fellow Christians. These differences can stimulate good constructive conversations…or heated and unhelpful debates. How are we to approach these kinds of things? Should we only associate with those we agree 100% on? How do denominational divides work? What is the threshold before we go our separate ways?
That is the question, and it is a question I was asked during my first seminary class back in 2024. What I want to offer is a brief answer.
Here’s a slightly younger Pastor Matt,
When I read the question, I was reminded of an article Al Mohler posted on his website entitled “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity”[1]. In the article, Mohler makes the case that there are different levels of doctrinal importance that we must consider before we divide. First-order issues are those that are central to the gospel. It is the second-order issue where I believe denominational divisions can, and in some cases, must be formed. Mohler wrote, “Christians across a vast denominational range can stand together on the first-order doctrines and recognize each other as authentic Christians, while understanding that the existence of second-order disagreements prevents the closeness of fellowship we would otherwise enjoy.”[2] I would agree with Mohler that there must be some level of flexibility without compromise. When asking what doctrinal disagreement would be acceptable considering the biblical teaching concerning the unity of the universal church, one must first think through what that unity means and where it is found. I think fundamentally the unity that binds all Christians as members of the universal church is found in their belief of the true gospel. Apart from genuine faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, there is no adoption of an individual into the universal church. In this case, there can be no allowance for doctrinal differences that compromise the gospel message, as that would allow for unity with a false church. If I were going to make doctrine binding in my denomination, included would be all doctrines that defend the one true gospel of Jesus because there is no unity with a false church. That seems obvious, but it needs to be stated.
However, several other key doctrines do not compromise the gospel that genuine Christians disagree about. The divisions that form are not at the cost of the gospel message but rather serve as an allowance for disagreement among genuine believers, promoting fellowship and unity within their own denomination or doctrinal camp. These differences do not compromise the unity of the universal church. I was struck by a quote by John Hammett where he states, “Unity does not require uniformity.”[3] Simply put, there are some things that Christians can disagree on and still be Christian.
I think some of the major doctrines that cause differences include baptism and leadership of the church. Is infant baptism biblical? Are the roles of pastor, elder, and deacon reserved for men only, or is there allowance for women to function in these roles? The issues are the hotly contested ones, but even less volatile issues such as eschatological views or beliefs regarding spiritual gifts can sometimes warrant denominational divide. If a church holds to an optimistic post-millennial view of Christ’s return, that will impact their mission within the world. Or if a church does not hold to a future of Israel, that will also impact their mission within the world. If a believer happens to disagree with that viewpoint, they may find it necessary to find a church that adheres closer to what they believe. If a continuationist were to go to a church that believes in cessationism regarding spiritual gifts, tension could arise should they try to speak in tongues during a prayer meeting. What I think is the key factor is how these differences in doctrine impact the function of the local church. Could a believer holding to credobaptism enjoy fellowship in a Presbyterian or Reformed church that practices paedobaptism? It is more likely they would struggle every time an infant was baptized. Or could an equalitarian attend a strong complementarian church and not feel frustration or violate their conscience? It is more likely they would conflict with the church leadership because of differing viewpoints. I think for the sake of unity, divisions would need to occur, not at the cost of unity. It is these kinds of doctrines that would be binding on the denominational level. This allows believers to attend a church that practices the ordinances as they see them taught in Scripture or appoints church leaders as they see them taught in Scripture, while still maintaining the unity found in Christ. We do not divide because we think the other church is a false church and therefore do not have true unity with them; we divide to maintain the universal unity shared in Christ while allowing for disagreement on secondary issues.
To summarize, there are issues that are fundamental that we hold to strongly. We cannot and must not compromise the core tenets of the gospel. However, among brothers and sisters there can be variance in perspective and wonderful fellowship and community. The threshold for biblical divide, in my view, is what affects the function of the church. We can agree to disagree on interpretations of various issues, but once they begin to impact how the church functions, problems can arise, and therefore separation actually promotes unity.
One thing I would add if I were writing this paper again is that in our interactions with one another, we need to be gracious and understanding. The apostle Paul wrote, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col. 4:6 ESV). To promote constructive conversations and not heated debates, we must be teachable and understanding. We can disagree with a paedobaptist (and believe me, I do), but I would still treat them as a brother and sister in Christ and maybe even learn from them. We are dealing with shepherds and sheep, not wolves and goats; we need to remember that as we disagree and discuss theological differences within the church.
SDG
For the Master,
Pastor Matt
Bibliography
Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids, Mi: Kregel Academic, 2019.
Mohler, Albert. “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity.” AlbertMohler.com, July 12, 2005. https://albertmohler.com/2005/07/12/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity/.
Footnotes
[1] Albert Mohler, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity,” AlbertMohler.com, July 12, 2005, https://albertmohler.com/2005/07/12/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity/.
[2] Mohler, Theological Triage, 2005.
[3] John S Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids, Mi: Kregel Academic, 2019), 62.