I find myself often questioning how many of the doctrinal controversies found in the church today are the result of personal preference over and above scriptural disagreement. As I look at many subjects of differing opinion in the church today (worship, apologetics and preaching to name the first three that come to mind) it appears that the disagreement, although usually revolving around a doctrinal controversy , is kicked up a few levels because of personal preference.
I know that I have preferences about the way certain things in church are done. I prefer a more liturgical church service, I prefer presuppositional apologetics, and I prefer expository preaching. Now I know that these are preferences. The bible doesn’t command them, that is there is they fit within the broad commands of scripture but there are other ways to fulfill those broad commands.
I can construct arguments as to why I think my preferences are superior to a person who prefers a more Charismatic church service, evidential apologetics, and topical preaching, good arguments at that, but in the end I know that I cannot simply say that scripture agrees with me that this is the way things should be done.
Now in the past I have not been this charitable, arguing on some of these topics (as well as others) that my preference is the only biblically acceptable way. That lack of charity has caused unnecessary division, and created wasted much time on message boards.
We could use more charity in the church. Too often we are too quick to pull out our guns on issues that the bible allows for multiple views on, or something that is of little important importance in the life of the church (majoring in the minors). And when I say that, I am of course implying that there are some areas that the bible does not allow multiple views on. There are some things spelled out so plainly in scripture that the church must not allow deviance on them. The key is to determine what category the issue falls into.
The best way I’ve found to do this is to make a habit of revisiting what you believe that is not contained in one of the first three ecumenical creeds. After you make a decision on a doctrine revisit it after a year. Take a look at the arguments that convinced you of it, the arguments you rejected, what you’ve experienced in the past year and ask yourself where that doctrine falls in importance. And of course look at scripture to see how much importance it places on that area, and to look to see if a decent case can be made for the arguments you rejected. All this you should have done when you first decided on what you believe scripture teaches on a doctrine, but there is something about returning to it after a year that allows a person often to be more open minded about it.
Another way to approach this, and this depends a great deal on the friends you have and their views, is to find someone you know well that has taken another view then yours and to talk to them about it. When I say talk to them, I do not mean argue and debate with them, but actually talk with them. Ask question about their view and listen to their answers. In the past I’ve both talked with friends about their views and debate them on their views and continually I get more out of the discussion then the debate.
Turning theology from a debate into a conversation is one of the things I’ve taken away from my study of the emerging church (particularly Dan Kimball). Although depending on who is doing the conversing from the emerging movement I think they may be talking about too much, I do think that conversing is something that should be done a lot more. A debate assumes that each side has a firm unmovable position that they believe is 100% correct. Are we 100% sure on everything we debate? I know I’m often not, which is why I try not to do it as much anymore. We need to recognize what is important and unmovable, what we should allow charity on, and what is only a preference that we should put aside when it helps our brothers.
Bryan, good post and a great topic. I know that when I was younger–physically, socially, and spiritually younger–I liked to think there was pretty much one right way to do everything and to think about everything. Maturing has changed my mind on a lot of things, or at least given me the perspective that God allows for a certain variety in both faith and practice. Which isn’t to say I think there are no lines in the sand.
I love a couple homely illustrations: “The Christian life is like playing football: there is a lot of leeway to run the plays on one side or the other or right down the middle, but there is a line past which you may not go.
Or, “There is a ditch on both sides of the road.”
And if you hit the hole with the right play, you might break one all the way to the endzone… hmm, not sure if that works
I disagree that debate is unhealthy or undesirable. In fact, I would say a mind without debate is likely stagnant and closed to new ideas. See my full response for details.
Atanamis, I believe you and Bryan are not using the same definition for the word “debate.” A debate in your definition is an academic exercise with nothing at stake. He is talking about people who have a lot at stake in their attempt to win, and who do not act charitably in their discourse. Your kind of debate can best be done with heartless robots–trouble is, –alert! alert!–some people do have feelings.
My point is, not everything is worth being dogmatic about and to argue a side point of doctrine just for the sake of arguing is a useless (if at times amusing) exercise.