Discussing Doctrinal Differences

By Matthew Steven Bracey

Among the subjects I teach at Welch College is Christian Doctrines. One of my goals, in addition to teaching Reformed Arminian and Free Will Baptist Doctrine, is to introduce students to the doctrinal positions of other confessions. I strive to teach the inner logic of varying positions. But my purpose, for Free Will Baptist students especially, is to teach them how to respond to alternative viewpoints and remain confident in their own.

When we find ourselves interacting with people holding different beliefs, we will have more meaningful conversations when we truly understand their positions rather than casually dismissing them as ridiculous. Sometimes, doctrinal differences do not amount to one position being biblical and another not; sometimes, all parties involved are wrestling with Scripture and interpreting key passages differently. For this reason, we should not be dismissive, and thereby disrespectful and uncharitable, of other positions. In this way, we learn humility.

Some time ago, in one of my Doctrines classes, we began discussing the eternal state of children who die in the womb or infancy: whether they go to Heaven or Hell or both. We had a good back-and-forth dialogue, working through varying positions on the topic, but I observed some unease from some students.

Real conversation can be hard. A classroom discussion about children dying in infancy will generate responses from participants for whom the topic is merely theoretical, as well as from participants for whom it is experiential. Some people are working through technical arguments, while others are working through painful memories, perhaps the death of a deceased sibling or miscarried child.

People who believe all such children go to Heaven may be genuinely offended or deeply upset that anyone could believe anything otherwise. However, other people—those believing in unconditional election, for example—may believe these children go to Heaven only if they are among God’s elect from eternity past.

Put these different students with different answers to difficult questions in a room together, and conversation quickly can become dicey. The air can turn cold. Participants can become understandably sad and uncomfortable; they can even become angry and treat others with disrespect. Sometimes, people are just plain mean; other times, they speak from a place of genuine pain. Regardless, I strongly believe we all need a measure of grace because we all falter sometimes.

These reflections raise an important question: how should we, as God’s people, discuss doctrinal differences? What follows are three principles that have occurred to me as I have reflected on this experience.

Show sensitivity. Often in the excitement of conversation, we get caught up with our ideas and seem to forget we are interacting with a person. We think more about what we are saying than how the other person is hearing it. We must remember we are interacting with people with unique backgrounds and struggles and communicate in a manner that acknowledges those individuals. In other words, we should learn and practice emotional and social intelligence.

The example of Jesus bears out this point. Sometimes, He communicated with people sharply, such as in His interactions with some Pharisees: “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do” (John 8:43-44a). More often, His tactic was different, such as His interaction with the Samaritan woman in John 4, or the feeding of the five thousand in John 6, or the episode of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.

Consider the way Jesus interacted with the woman at the well. He did not avoid the problems associated with her marital background or understanding of worship, but He engaged her compassionately and patiently. Or consider the circumstances in John 8. Jesus was direct with the Pharisees who should have known better: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (verse 7). And yet, to the woman caught in adultery, He said, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? ...Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (verses 10b-11).

The example of Jesus calls us to consider the people with whom we are interacting and to make decisions about what we say and how we say it on that basis.

Engage others with seriousness and empathy, not flippancy and contempt. When discussing doctrinal differences, it is tempting to treat our interpretations as if they are the only real interpretations and to treat the positions of others as if they are silly. In some cases, views really are silly. Still, the quickest way to kill a worthwhile conversation is to act as if the other person is unintelligent. Jesus told us to treat people the same way you want them to treat you (Matthew 7:12). We want people to treat us with seriousness; likewise, we must do the same.

Again, we see this illustrated in the life of Jesus. Consider the case of Nicodemus in John 3 when he asks Jesus how someone can be born again (verse 9). Although Jesus asks him how he can be a teacher of Israel and not understand these things, He does not treat Nicodemus’ question with levity but with seriousness. The narrative presents Jesus understanding and engaging Nicodemus on his level. We might also consider the story of Mary in John 11. Lazarus had died, and Mary was filled with grief. Upon seeing her, Jesus demonstrated profound empathy, bearing her grief. He wept while knowing full well Lazarus’ resurrection was coming. Jesus engages people where they are.

We, too, should engage genuinely, not dismissively, with people and their problems and questions. The graceful swan in a lake provides a good picture in contrast with the proverbial bull in a china shop. Engage people with grace, poise, dignity, and patience rather than disorder, aggression, selfishness, and pride.

Interpret relevant Scriptures with integrity. In our engagement with the Scriptures, we must demonstrate integrity, which means using our minds. Biblical hermeneutics (interpretative principles) is not anti-intellectual. Reason separates human beings from animals. God has given us minds. Consequently, we must use them honestly when we interpret the Bible.

Making a passage say less than it says is not intellectually honest. Likewise, dogmatically insisting upon an interpretation the passage does not require, thereby binding others’ consciences, is intellectually dishonest. I am not suggesting we cannot interpret the Scriptures when they give way to multiple interpretations. We simply should not confuse what the Scriptures say with what we say.

I am not uncomfortable being dogmatic about interpretations of passages that are straightforward. For example, in John 14:6, Jesus stated clearly, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The person who claims Jesus is one of many doors to Heaven has an insurmountable roadblock in this clear statement of biblical testimony.

By contrast, consider the moment in the Garden of Gethsemane when the Apostle Peter struck the ear of the servant Malchus (John 18:10-11). Jesus told him to put his sword away. Christian pacifists interpret this passage to teach Jesus was proclaiming an ethic of pacifism, and Christians should not join the police force or military. However, unlike the plain teaching of John 14:6, this passage does not require that interpretation.

First, this passage does not present a propositional statement like John 14:6; it is a story. Additionally, Jesus did not make the statement within the context of discussing vocational or political ethics; He made it within specific circumstances. These facts alone do not discount the passage’s use; they simply change the analysis. In addition, we should always interpret passages within the broader scope of Scripture, which includes all kinds of references to wars and swords and so forth. I believe a pacifist interpretation of John 18 is incorrect. The uncompromising insistence of some Anabaptists that John 18 teaches an unqualified ethic of pacifism makes the passage say too much and seeks to bind men’s consciences in ways they ought not be bound.

In some ways, I end where I began: humility. We must recognize our limitations. We are finite and sinful, whereas God is infinite and holy (Isaiah 6:1-5; 55:8; Psalm 14:3). Practicing this truth increases our ability to interpret the Scriptures with fidelity. In addition, as we discuss the Scriptures with others, we must do so in a manner that builds them up. We must treat them with dignity and honor, as we all, brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ, seek the truth of God together.

About the Author: Matthew Steven Bracey is vice provost for academic administration at Welch College, where he also teaches courses in Christian Ethics, history, law, theology, and interdisciplinary studies. He holds degrees from Cumberland School of Law (J.D.), Beeson Divinity School (M.T.S.), and Welch College (B.A., History, Biblical Studies).