[03/16/19]
It has been on my heart for the last few weeks, as I wrapped up my work on 1 Corinthians, to set down my beliefs in some fashion. This is likely to become too large and involved to be accounted a statement of faith, yet I wouldn’t call it a systematic theology by any stretch. It is, I think, an opportunity to take a reasonably organized look at what I hold to be doctrine, and to assess the biblical foundations for those beliefs.
This is quite a departure from my usual sort of study, so I’m not entirely certain how I shall proceed or what it shall look like. I expect it shall explore far more than what we might call the fundamentals, the primary matters of doctrine. I should say up front that whereas most of the time doctrines are divided into primary and secondary groups – the secondaries being those about which men of good faith can quite reasonably disagree and yet remain in Christian fellowship – I tend to see three groups, adding a tertiary set. This is because I find that in practice some secondary doctrines are more secondary than others.
Thus, for example, one’s views on what are referred to as the five points that distinguish Arminian from Calvinist doctrine may be secondary in the traditional sense of not bearing directly on one’ state of salvation, they are so central to how one views the whole of Scripture that it is in practice exceedingly difficult for those who disagree to coexist in close quarters. I don’t say it’s impossible, or that the one group finds it necessary to decry the other as heretics. That would put such items firmly in the primary doctrine category. But, so divergent are our understandings, and so all-pervasive, that while we may acknowledge one another as brothers, we wouldn’t necessarily wish to be neighbors.
So, what’s in the third category? Perhaps wisdom would suggest I should wait until I’ve neared the end of this exploration to make the distinction. But, I will suggest a few that are tertiary concerns for me, recognizing that for others they are likely far more significant matters. In that group, then, I would set matters such as one’s views on the charismata, or on women in ministerial positions. I would include one’s understanding of baptism’s proper application in there, and perhaps even one’s view of the elements of the Lord’s Supper. I recognize even as I set these down that there are aspects of each topic that probably rise to secondary or even primary status in my thinking, but as a general subject, within the bounds set by more significant matters of doctrine, I am perfectly happy to allow people their conscience on these things, and the fact that there is disagreement really doesn’t phase me overly much.
I could say, for example, that I am just as at home in a Charismatic church as a Conservative Reformed church. It’s not the charismatic display that would cause me to take issue, but I will take issue with charismatic excess and laxness in watchfulness over the flock. I will likely have trouble with preaching that demonstrates a near total disregard for doctrine. By the same token, I will take issue with a Conservative church that shows little regard for doctrine, or one which seems reduced to forms, having nothing of substance. That, I note, is a highly subjective assessment, at least so far as the last part goes. But, my point is simply this: I would not be troubled by differences in perspective on those tertiary topics in and of themselves. I would need to recognize, in either case, the inherent dangers of the heart and mind held by such beliefs.
Similarly, to be in a congregation that chooses a Complementarian course in regard to women causes me no grief. Of course, the women out there may insist that this is because I am a man, and therefore cannot possibly understand the pain this causes them. But, then, I could also point to many women who would be just as pained to find themselves in a church following the Egalitarian course. I could, no doubt, find men who were as comfortable or uncomfortable in one setting as others are in the other. But, I would not find it needful to seek another church on the basis of either belief, nor to part company with those who so believe.
This is, I acknowledge, a loose and again subjective separation of ideas, and I may have to explore it further after some of this work is fleshed out. For now, I face a bit of a question as to how I keep myself in the Bible as I proceed. My initial thought has been to simply follow the readings of a “Bible in a Year” program for the duration. We shall see.
As to the pursuit of this effort, I shall follow a flow not dissimilar to my usual studies. That is to say, I shall be attempting to set out an outline by which to proceed, organizing my topics in some reasonably sensible fashion. I shall, to the degree possible, not simply be following prior documents, such as the various historical confessions of the church, much though I appreciate them. I may consider looking at input from some of those as a ‘second pass’, as I would normally do with commentaries when pursuing a book study. But, I’m not at all sure how that would work in practice.
