Framing Doctrinal Disagreements - Part 1
By Derek Radney, May 31, 2022.
When building a house, you must distinguish between those aspects of construction which are vital to the existence of the house, those which are critical for safety and longevity, those which are important for function, and those that shape the aesthetic. The foundation is essential, for without it, you cannot build anything at all. The framing, wiring, plumbing, and structure is critical to a healthy and safe home in which people can live, grow, and flourish over time. The design shapes how household members function as well as the effectiveness of the household labor and mission. Finally, the decor influences the culture of the home.
In this article, I want to argue that the household of God also contains varying levels of doctrinal importance, and that we must recognize these distinctions in order to experience proper unity in our denomination and with other Christians. My hope for the PCA is that we can find a way forward together if we can move toward agreement on these various levels of importance, then get more specific about what the current disagreements we’re having are, and then, finally, identify the level of importance of these disagreements. This article will focus on that first step. I will aim to identify specifically some of our current disagreements and how to categorize them in a follow up article.
Christian Unity
Before exploring the various levels of doctrinal importance, let me explain what I mean by ‘proper unity.’
Proper unity with Christians across denominations involves recognizing one another as members of Christ’s church despite real and significant differences on doctrine and perhaps even on some moral judgments. This recognition goes beyond verbal affirmation of our unity to confessing the core teachings of the Christian faith and to accepting the validity of each other’s baptisms, eucharistic celebrations, and ordinations.
Proper unity within the PCA particularly, which is what I want to focus on here, involves holding to our Presbyterian and Reformed distinctives by embracing our system of doctrine and functioning with integrity according to our Book of Church Order (BCO) while allowing for differences in faith and practice on matters that do not strike at the vitals of our system of doctrine and do not violate our BCO.
Denominational unity is destroyed when we tolerate things which must be rejected because they violate or contradict distinctives that are vital to our system of doctrine. Denominational unity is also destroyed when we draw doctrinal lines more narrowly than our system of doctrine requires. It is my sense that both of these errors are playing out in our denomination and that those committing these errors are driving polarization and reactive conflict. In other words, divisive behavior provokes divisive behavior in others.
Acknowledging varying levels of doctrinal importance and then carefully categorizing doctrines within this schema is critical to facilitating unity amidst certain types of diversity. It also gives us a helpful framework for discerning what other churches, organizations, and conferences we can partner and participate in, and to what level.
But Are There Levels of Doctrinal Importance?
As elders in the PCA, we vow to receive and adopt the the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, and our Book of Church Order explicitly recognizes that some of what is contained in the standards is fundamental to the system and some is not, which is why officers may by granted exceptions (BCO 21-4). Granting that some in our denomination object to good faith subscription, I think all would admit that the doctrines in chapter 2 on the Trinity are more important than those in chapter 24 on marriage and divorce. Further, most would admit that what’s taught in chapter 1 on Holy Scripture plays a more important role in our faith and practice than chapter 22 on lawful oaths and vows.
More significantly, Scripture itself teaches us that not all doctrines are equally important. Paul tells the Corinthians that the gospel is of first importance (1 Cor 15:3), and in his letters, he handles different doctrinal disagreements with varying levels of urgency. At times, he calls for Christians not to despise and pass judgment on one another about what to eat and drink (Rom 14 & 1 For 8-10) while at other times with other disagreements he suggests those in error are accursed (Gal 1:9). Scripture explicitly teaches that not every doctrinal question makes or breaks the faith.
I want to suggest then, that our standards and Scripture explicitly and by good and necessary consequence teach us four different levels of doctrinal importance.
What are the Levels of Doctrinal Importance?
The Foundation (Orthodoxy): The first level are those doctrines which are essential to the Christian faith, which constitute the foundation of the Church, and which are shared by all Christians everywhere. These are the central tenets of orthodoxy that, if distorted or rejected, constitute heresy and give us a wholly different religion. These articles of faith were the subject of many of the ecumenical councils (i.e. Trinity, the person and natures of Christ). Some were the subject of Reformational debates (i.e. salvation by grace alone, justification by faith). And some were the reason for the modernist/fundamentalist debate (i.e. substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection). None of the doctrinal disagreements we’re currently having in the PCA deal with doctrines on this level.
The Frame (Denominational Order): The second level contains doctrines which are critical to the health and safety of our churches, the fidelity of our denomination over time, and the godly formation of our members. These articles of faith include but are not limited to inerrancy, covenantal theology, election and predestination, the bondage of the will, and the scope of the atonement. Doctrines related to the church (sacraments, polity, ordination)fall into this category as well because they necessarily impact the way a church orders its life and therefore require separate denominations when there’s disagreement. For example, a church or group of churches cannot hold conflicting positions on 1) infant baptism, 2) male only ordination, and 3) the authority of the church residing in the elders. Churches must be ordered in some way and therefore must take a position on these matters.
The Design (Functional): The third level includes doctrines which orient and shape how a church functions in ministry and mission. There can be disagreement over these doctrines within a denomination and often a local church, and Christians must learn to allow for difference in these matters without causing division. That doesn’t mean debate is off limits, but we must treat these differences as important while not causes for separation. In the PCA, we recognize there will be differences on how we understand the creation days of Genesis, some of the applications we drawn from the 2nd and 4th commandments, the millennium and Jesus’ return, spiritual gifts, and more.
The Decor (Cultural): Finally, the fourth level are those doctrines which influence a church’s culture and typically relate to matters left to individuals and communities seeking to be faithful in their place and time. These are matters of wisdom and conscience guided by Scripture but not taught explicitly or by good and necessary consequence. It is here that Christians regularly express wide differences in their approach. For example, Christians are free to disagree about how to best educate their children, which candidates to vote for, and what public policies best approach a biblical vision of justice. Christians will arrive at different judgments about what foods to consume, art to enjoy, language to use, and clothes to wear. Churches will make different decisions about the circumstances of worship, establish different programs for Christian formation and fellowship, and recommend different resources for study. Certainly some of these judgments will be wiser than others, but we must make room for people to follow their consciences and for churches to exercise wisdom in their context without trying to bring uniformity on these matters.
Given that everyone in the PCA agrees on matters of orthodoxy (the foundation), we need to think carefully about the last three levels (frame, design, decor). I want to argue (and I hope to make this more clear later on when I get more specific about places where there’s disagreement in the PCA right now) that there are teachings in the Presbyterian and Reformed heritage that are not vital to the Reformed system. To give one example, the vast majority of Westminster Divines surely believed God created all things in the span of six days. This is undoubtedly the view of the Reformed tradition, but this understanding of the length of time it took to create is not vital to the Christian faith or our distinct system of doctrine, nor does it necessarily shape the ordering of our churches. For these reasons, we allow officers exceptions as long as their view on the matter does not distort important teachings like the historical Adam and Eve, original sin, or the goodness of God’s creation. I’m not suggesting the issue is unimportant but that it’s relatively unimportant when compared to orthodoxy and the distinctives which necessarily require us to ordered our distinct churches.
Reactivity
Others have written about making the distinctions I’m highlighting here, so this is not original to me. But I have not seen many in the PCA apply these distinctions to our internal disagreements, and we’re much worse off for it.
I’ve noticed a tendency among the missional crowd to function with only two categories: central and unimportant. The Moravian saying, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” is important when talking with a non-Christian or when we aim to display unity with all Christians. But that won’t cut it when it comes to pastoring a church in a particular denomination since there are many doctrines which drastically shape how our people are being formed and what will produce long term health and fidelity in our churches. It is good, right, and necessary to have distinct beliefs as a denomination that shape how we function. Part of maintaining unity is abiding by the ways we’ve agreed to order our churches.
In the other pockets of our denomination, I see a lot of elders lumping every doctrinal question into the first or second level and rejecting out of hand anything that hasn’t been a part of our Reformed heritage as if the vitals of our system are being violated. It’s good and right to have positions on tertiary issues, for these matters do impact our ministries and witness. But holding to these positions too tightly without allowing others in our churches and denomination to think and act differently needlessly prohibits us from walking together in unity. Part of maintaining unity involves refusing to cut people off over differences that don’t demand mutually exclusive practice.
The reality is that both sides are reacting to one another, something I tried to speak to in my last article. One guy holds something too tightly, and so another acts as if only central doctrines are worth our concern. Another guy downplays our distinctives or appears to play fast and loose with our polity, so another guy acts like he’s J. Gresham Machen fighting those denying the faith. Both of these reactions reveal an anxious posture uncomfortable with the presence of some kind of difference. Both of these reactions are needlessly tearing us apart.
The First Step Forward
I propose that the first step in resolving our differences is acknowledging these levels of doctrinal importance so that we can name our differences, locate them, and then attune our level of concern accordingly.
My key arguments thus far are as follows:
1. Not every doctrinal question carries the same weight.
2. There are four levels of doctrinal importance:
Level 1: Foundational - Orthodoxy, the essence of the faith
Level 2: Denominational - Distinctives critical to health, fidelity, and formation
Level 3: Functional - Issues orienting and shaping ministry and mission
Level 4: Cultural - Matters of wisdom and conscience flavoring connection to people and place
3. The Reformed heritage contains doctrines which can be categorized in all four of these levels.
4. Failing to recognize these levels is leading to errors in two directions and driving reactive responses from various groups within the PCA.
If we can agree with these four arguments, then I hope we can begin to productively discuss the specific doctrinal disagreements before us. That’s what I hope to do in my next article.
Derek Radney is a Teaching Elder at Trinity Church of Winston-Salem.
