Chapter 8: Dealing with Doctrinal Differences

If any serious effort is going to be made by local congregations to practice some form of unity, the question of doctrinal differences will – must – eventually come up. In chapter 8, Frame deals with the question of to what extent doctrinal differences can be tolerated, and how to deal with the differences.

To give Frame due credit, he makes some valid points regarding the necessity for tolerance in theological discussions. The conceits of total logical interconnectivity; of the equal importance of all doctrinal teachings of Scripture; of over-systemazation; and the demand for total conformity in lay and ministerial levels (conceits that I have fallen victim to in the past) are exploded.

But I must also say that I sensed a certain amount of ambiguity in Frame’s arguments in this chapter. Almost as if he didn’t want to make too strong a case for a viable theological discussion, for fear that his beloved Presbyterian distinctives would get shelved…

I really do not want to be part of a church which is unwilling to subscribe to the New Testament doctrines of justification and predestination... We can do much better than that, for God has taught some of us how. I would not want to be in a church where, for even a while, ministers were free to disagree with these teachings.

Even Frame, when push comes to shove, sours on his idea of re-establishing a “one institution fits all” church government in our day and age.

And again, as we have noted in analyses of prior chapters, what Frame gives us with his left hand…

(M)y "back to the future" proposal… would involve uniting all Christians under one church government doctrinally based on the Scriptures and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of A.D. 381. That creed was the last creed that was agreed to by the one, true church and which is acknowledged by virtually all Christians to this day. That would, in effect, take us back before A.D. 451, before the major schisms. Then we could study Scripture together, hopefully without the atmosphere of party spirit, pressure and fear that has surrounded such discussions in the past.

He proceeds to take away with his right.

(V)iews tolerable in the church in the year A.D. 200 are not necessarily tolerable in the year 2000, since God continually teaches his church new things out of the Scriptures.

A hard-core denominationalist would have a field day hoisting Frame with his own petard in regards to these points. “Who are you to say that (my denomination’s pet doctrine) is not a viable and vital ‘new thing’ that God has taught us, and that we must therefore not surrender for a prior, less developed stage of thought?”

So, where do we go from here? Once again, I will submit that the way forward is not “top-down”, but “bottom-up” – ecumenism will only work between local congregations where the members of all concerned bodies can come together, live and worship together, and develop the trust required for such a reunification to work. And rather than abandon the theological debates from the past 1600 years and re-invent the theological wheels, let us who have access to these resources rather use them for all they are worth. Frame’s argument for perspectival debate is well given – and we in the West still (via cheap printing and the Internet) have access to the greater majority of the records of the Church’s theologians. We can, with a due consideration of cultural and historical contexts, weigh the points and emphases of each side in the debate and try to give due deference to each where it is due.

For an example, take the thorny question of who should be baptized. I have (now) been on both sides of the debate regarding the validity of paedobaptism. And I see that each side has emphases that need respecting. Paedos (I now see) recognize that human beings are more than isolated rational minds – we live and learn in community, and faith can be seen and exercised apart from full rational comprehension. Credos, on the other hand, see the need for baptism to not be divorced from a living faith, that the ritual can be elevated outside of its original intent and lead to presumption rather than covenant faithfulness. Human beings, being the finite sinful beings we are, probably cannot fully grasp both sides, depending on our circumstances and personal inclinations. And historically, men who have strongly held to the prime truths (Christ and the Gospel) have disagreed on this issue. Therefore both sides should be accommodated in the life of the local body, in charity and humility. (I have seen this work, in Presbyterian contexts no less! So it is possible, and I would say necessary, in our culture and context.)

Frame recognizes the central importance of a solid ecumenical creed as foundational in theological discussion (and I would add, worship). Frame also expresses his concern that the Nicene Creed would not of itself prove an adequate bulwark for keeping the discussion on “orthodox” ground, and he may have a point. But there is no reason why another layer of defenses could not be raised. I have, in other contexts, noted the existence of an evangelical ecumenical document called The Gospel of Jesus Christ – An Evangelical Celebration. This document was drawn up with the input of as broad a spectrum of evangelical input as was possible – Calvinist, Arminian, Charismatic, etc. Such a document could provide a further “point of meeting” as a basis of discussion towards unity, while keeping a strong orthodox boundary for the nervous nellies like Frame – and me.