I was in the middle of a series of posts entitled “Brick Walls and Picket Fences” a few months ago and got sidelined from it. I continue to believe that one of the greatest needs in the SBC (and the greater evangelical church) is for us learn to balance the pursuit of doctrinal correctness and unity. I have previously made 8 posts in this series, and plan to take it up again.
You will notice the similarity between this and Dr. Mohler’s Theological Triage rubric. There are both similarities and differences. The concept of both is that all doctrine is true but that does not mean that there is an identical importance to all doctrine. We all know this. We know the divinity of Christ is more important than whether the rapture is pretribulational or not (or other eschatological questions).
Overview of (and links to) Previous Posts
- In the first post, I introduced the topic. I have had deep experiences in two very different Christian camps – the theological and the experiential – which often seem to be in direct conflict. One desires theological correctness and the other prizes unity over doctrine which divides. I have seen much good in both and desire to find a way to bring them together.
- In the second post, I identified the four levels of biblical truth and the appropriate unity response at each level. Level 1 is the “Brick Wall” – doctrine which is essential to the Christian faith and over which we cannot compromise. We must build a brick wall of separation around these fundamental doctrinal truths. Level 2 is “Picket Fence” doctrine. Some disagreements do not require division but separation. By separating into churches and denominations we can practice our beliefs without arguing. We recognize, at this point, that those who disagree with us are genuine Christians even though we disagree with them. Level 3 is “Dinner Table Doctrine” – truths which we can disagree on even within the same church or denomination. Level 4 is “Personal Space” truth – in which each of us can have our own convictions and not disdain or condemn those who disagree. The key is to learn to properly categorize doctrine.
- In the third post, I introduced “Brick Wall Doctrine” – truths that are essential to the gospel and cannot be compromised in the church.
- In the fourth post, I started listing what I believe are Brick Wall truths, beginning with the perfection of the Word of God.
- In the fifth post, I identified two more Brick Wall doctrines – the nature of God and the sinful nature of mankind.
- In the sixth post, I finished up my discussion of Brick Wall doctrines – examining the nature of Jesus, the gospel and the Second Coming of Christ.
- In a supplemental post, I addressed a few sticky questions about specific groups (open theism, Catholics, etc) and asked whether they are inside or outside of the Brick Wall.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all the Christians in a city could come together and form one church? Think of it – only one church for all of Sioux City. What a blessing that would be, right? The unity that God intended for His church – an answer to Jesus’ prayer in John 17 – experienced here on earth. Christians joining to worship the Lord and serve him together without all that petty bickering and division – it would be glorious! Someone start humming the Doxology so we can all join in!But then, after the euphoria began to fade, a few uncomfortable realities might begin to present themselves. The Smith family would come up to me after Sunday worship, beaming from ear to ear. They just had their first baby and they want to honor me by asking me to baptize little Buford. Oh no, I would say, the Bible teaches that we only baptize those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ. Stunned, and a little hurt, they tell me that they were taught something very different when they were growing up in Orange City where the Dutch Reformed church reigned supreme.As we began to plan the worship service, one person would share a liturgy she wants us to recite. Horrified, the former Assemblies folks would hold up a new CD with some rocking worship songs they thought the praise band could sing. One of the former Baptists would hold up his worn Baptist Hymnal with the assurance that anything worth singing was carried in the pages of that book!On Sunday, I would stand before the congregation and suggest that it might be time we elected deacons. A few people would shake their heads and say, “I thought the pastor was supposed to lead the church. That’s how we did it back at our old church.” Someone else says, “Deacons? Pastors? Bah Humbug! We need elders to oversee the church of Sioux City.” One gentleman in the back would stand to say, “I wonder what the District Superintendent has to say about all this?”
Finally, we would decide that maybe it would be good to stop all this arguing and just worship the Lord together. Great idea! So, we begin the service. As soon as we get started, someone in the back jumps up and starts speaking in tongues loudly. Half the congregation stares at him like he has antennas and green skin. “Doesn’t he know that the miracle gifts passed away in the first century?” I would then stand to announce my sermon topic – eternal security – and half the church would get up and walk out. We would still be working out the details of our unity when the Rapture occurred. Oops, most of the congregation doesn’t even believe in that!
Denominations Are Evil, Right?
It is considered a truism today that denominations are evil, that they are a blot on the Christian landscape, causing division, separation and schism in the Body of Christ. We Baptists look down on those lesser denominations and they, in turn, think we are silly. But people are turning away from denominations in droves today and many consider that a good thing. Denominations are the devil’s playground, aren’t they?
I want to challenge that assertion. Denominations – accompanied by the proper attitude – are one of the greatest forces of unity in the body of Christ. Theoretically, it would be great if we could all worship together as one. But we would spend so much time arguing that we would never accomplish anything. But denominations allow us to worship according to our own beliefs and convictions. As long as our attitude toward one another is proper, denominations actually unite, not divide.
I am a Baptist. I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that only those who profess faith in Christ should be baptized – and that by immersion. But half the church disagrees with me. I am willing to accept (some of) those who practice paedobaptism as my Christian brothers and sisters. But I am not willing to compromise that doctrine in my church. You can love Jesus and not be immersed as a believer. But you cannot be a member of our Baptist church. We believe that doctrine is important. I am a (moderate) Calvinist and reject Arminian doctrine, believing that salvation hinges on God’s choice more than mine and is secure when it is given. It seems clear to me as I read scripture. But half the church disagrees. I believe that Paul’s primary teaching about tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 has one main point – tongues are not important. If you speak in tongues, fine. If not, no biggie. But a lot of my friends say tongues died out in the first century, and are not operational today. Others believe that tongues are the sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence. We who love Jesus have lots that divide us.
Dealing with Divisions
Soon after the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost, Christians began to disagree. While the Apostles were alive, they kept the church together by the force of their authority, but as soon as they were gone, the church began to splinter into groups. Church history is the story of Christians disagreeing with other Christians and dividing from one another.
For most of its history, the church has tended to magnify its differences. We have questioned the faith of those who disagree and vilified one another. The church has traditionally prized doctrinal uniformity much higher than unity. In the colonial days, dissenters were put to death by other Christians because they rejected common practices. I have books written by people who disagree about the details of the second coming, filled with vitriol and accusations of heresy. We have treated brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree on these issues as if they were the Philistines or Moabites.
Now, the pendulum has swung, and swung hard. This is a different Christian world than the one I grew up in 40 years ago. Promise Keepers and other movements have drawn the church together in ways we could not have imagined in my younger days. But with this blessed movement has come a tendency to discount doctrine. Some use doctrine and theology as dirty words, seeing no value in the pursuit of truth – no, to them it is divisive and dangerous. Let’s just love Jesus and live together in peace, they say, disregarding theology and doctrinal differences. But a church without doctrine, without discernment, is in deep danger in a world dominated by Satan’s lies.
So, this is our challenge. We must find a way to disagree without division. We must be one in Christ without compromising our pursuit of truth. We will erect that Brick Wall of Doctrine around those truths that are fundamental to the Christian faith. But there are many doctrines that simply do not warrant a Brick Wall. All you need for these differences is a friendly picket fence.
Building Picket Fences
A picket fence is a friendly way of separating neighbors. It is not a brick wall that divides, it just establishes boundaries. You chat over the fence, have picnics together, have cookouts in each other’s back yard, watch over the other’s homes and value the neighborhood you share. Around many doctrines we do not need a brick wall, but a simple picket fence. The brick wall is the boundary for the neighborhood, keeping out the enemies; false brethren who would tear down the work of God. Inside the brick wall, we share the neighborhood, chatting over the picket fences, fellowshipping together and blessing one another.
Yet, we keep the picket fence. We Baptists can baptize believers, have deacons and vote on everything (and many Baptist churches don’t even agree with that). The Presbyterians can sprinkle babies. The Bible churches can have elders. The charismatics can speak in tongues and prophesy. The Methodists can methodize. The Episcopalians can episcopize. We can all follow our convictions on our side of the picket fence. We try to be good neighbors, have as much fellowship as we can, then go back to our homes to follow Christ according to our beliefs.
The Community of Faith
I would like you to see the Christian world as a community, a city. Around that city is a Brick Wall that keeps out the spiritual predators, the wolves – the enemies who would undermine the truth and destroy the church. We have looked at the Brick Wall in some depth. But, even within the City of Faith, there are neighborhoods. There “Baptist Creek” and “Charismatic Heights.” There is “Reformed Ridge”, “Assembly of God Acres” and “Methodist Willows.” In each neighborhood, there are individual homes. Each of those homes represents an individual local church.
Each local church is a separate entity with its own beliefs, practices, and preferences. These homes are of different sizes and styles. There is nothing wrong with each of these homes remaining separate. But we must also be good neighbors. Across the street from Southern Hills Baptist Church is the Morningside Assembly of God. It is a strong church with solid leadership. But it would be tremendously difficult for us to worship together or form one congregation. We have significant theological differences and we have divergent practices that would make it hard for us all to live in one home. But we are friendly neighbors. The pastor is a friend. We help each other. They use our parking for their big neighborhood parties. We share an Upward Basketball ministry. Most importantly, we speak well of each other. I don’t run them down and they don’t run us down. We speak blessings.
It is necessary for us to have separate houses – at least until heaven. But it is not necessary for us to have a Brick Wall between us. We have a friendly picket fence and that is all we need. We are good neighbors. In our own ways, we proclaim the message of Christ and from time to time, we have a backyard barbeque together. Separate homes but good neighbors – that is the essence of the picket fence.
A Picket Fence Example
When I was a pastor in Cedar Rapids, there was another church about a quarter mile from mine. There are few doctrines (other than the basics of salvation) on which we agreed. Their pastor called me because they had some new believers that wanted to be baptized, but their building has no baptistery. We opened our doors and filled the tub. Neither of us compromised our doctrine, but we opened the gate in our picket fence and had the neighbors over for a visit.
So, here’s the point. Sometimes, you need a Brick Wall. When people compromise truth that is fundamental to the gospel of Christ, we have to stand firm and contend for the faith. But there are a lot of doctrines that do not require the drastic Brick Wall. They only require a friendly picket fence.
A Dangerous Tendency
Division seems to be built into the human heart. We have our political views, our favorite teams, our preferences, and of course, our convictions. Christians can and should be passionate about their convictions. But they must be careful to avoid the tendency of elevating a picket fence doctrine to the point of being a Brick Wall. We must bless and accept our brothers and sisters even when we disagree, if those disagreements do not touch the gospel.
May we never build Brick Walls when a simple Picket Fence will do.
Picket fences are not only necessary, but inevitable, as your humorous description of an ecumenical worship service shows. A church baptizes believers or infants or both, but they can’t exclusively hold to all three at the same time. A church allows speaking in tongues during worship or doesn’t, but not both. and so on. When I was a youth pastor, we had several other churches with very large, established youth ministries in town, and I made it a point to encourage students I encountered to be committed and involved wherever they might be going, as long as it proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus. And whenever we had a student transfer to another ministry, I always reminded myself to not be jealous because there were enough lost kids in town for all of us.
We can hold on to our differences while still blessing others with our words.
See, here’s the thing, I’m not sure I see picket fence as being equal to denominations. For instance, taking just one example, I would say in the case of PCA Presbyterians and Southern Baptists it would be. I can affirm someone as a Christian who sprinkles babies, believes in amillinialism (evein if I can’t spell it), and has elder ruled churches. I think they’re wrong on the first two and see the third as a non-issue, but that’s just me cause that’s how I roll.
However, if you were talking about another denomination, not mentioning names, that teaches the Bible is not inerrant, Christ may not have been born of a virgin and if He wasn’t ‘taint no big deal anyway, and that people from other faiths can be saved by God through Christ without ever consciously trusting Christ, then not only would I not affirm things like them as Christians I would do everything I could to oppose them and hinder them.
I read a moronic comment on another thread where the person said somethng like “It’s wrong for one part of the body of Christ to deny another”. Well, in my example in the first paragraph I would agree. However, what that poster meant was my example in the 2nd paragraph–that we should NEVER fail to affirm someone as a Christian.
Joe, you would need to go back and read the previous posts in which I defined the Brick Wall doctrine. Picket Fences are between churches and people inside the Brick Wall – who believe the biblical gospel and essential doctrine.
Of course, we still have to treat people like that with respect, but as people who need Christ’s saving grace, not as brothers or sisters in Christ who disagree.
Building a Brick Wall where a Picket Fence will do is an offense against the unity of Body. Failing to build a Brick Wall when it is necessary is an offense against the gospel. Finding that balance is key.
That’s the problem with picking this thing up after a 9 month break.
I did read them and all. I’m not saying that you’re saying we can or should cooperate with people who reject fundemental doctrines but, well, take the Epsicopalians–they reject inerrancy and they would affirm that muslims can be saved by following the light they have. Well, I can’t see that denomination being on the other side of a picket fence. Now, there may perhaps be some people in the Episcopalian church that are regenerate but it would be in spite of the church’s doctrine. IMHO
By ‘Episcopalian’, do you include ‘Anglican’ in that category also?
Well, le’ts see-They have openly gay ministers in open relationships. What do you think?
I mean, you won’t give a straight forward answer but I know and you know that you have no problems with the fact that they have gay clergy.
Joe,
I hate to throw a monkey wrench in your Episcopalian theory but here goes: Don’t paint the entire church with that broad brush. The church in the town I live in is a conservative, evangelical church. The state I live in has a conservative bishop that has consistently voted against the national church policies. A good friend and associate is in an Episcopal theological school studying for the priesthood (second career). He is as regenerate at any on this blog. He for sure is not baptist but he is a saved individual and never misses a chance to preach Jesus and Jesus alone.
Jake is right, Joe. There are essentially two wings to the Episcopalian church. One is conservative and the other is liberal. In fact, many are breaking fellowship with the American Episcopalian structure and affiliating with international and more conservative diocese.
“In fact, many are breaking fellowship with the American Episcopalian structure and affiliating with international and more conservative diocese.”
Not all American conservative Episcopalian Churches are going to join the Anglicanorum coetibus, but some have chosen to begin the process actively ‘by discernment’.
Some ‘liberal’ (?) American Episcopal Churches are also initiating movement towards the Anglicanorum coetibus.
The process is lengthy and thoroughly done, so it will not be anything that is done ‘over night’ at all. It will take years, this process.
Michael Yousef is an example of a conservative Anglican who does not believe in gays in the ministry, etc… J.I. Packer would be another.
I stand corrected. Actually, I’m pretty sure I reemember hearing that about Episcopals and Anglicans now that I think about it. Therefore, my comment should be directed to the non-Christian side of those denominations. Thanks for the correction.
I don’t think ‘denominations’ are ‘evil’,
but how are ‘denominations’ reconciled with sacred Scripture as being ‘biblical’ ?
Hi Christiane,
I don’t know if denominations are “biblical” as such, but they arise out of an idea with precedent in Acts. Denominations arise in two ways:
1. A split-off from an existing denomination
2. An organic growth from men of conviction, usually done within a particular culture
Sometimes, two bodies going their separate ways is good – a la Paul and Barnabas splitting up. The gospel was furthered by these men parting ways. The Baptists are an example of organic growth. Even today, Baptist historians disagree over where and how baptist thinking originated. But Baptists were almost exclusively English in the beginning. Many denominations exist today because of very similar thought patterns in different languages.
So I don’t think denominations are prescriptively biblical, but they are not descriptively unbiblical.
Jim G.
Well, le’ts see-They have openly gay ministers in open relationships. What do you think?
I’m sure you weren’t avoiding, just over looked it, so I’ll repost it here since YOU brought it up. Is it ok for churches to have ministers who are in open homosexual relationships, yes or no?
Joe,
Is it OK to have ministers who are gossips or gluttons or adulterors or drunks? That is a yes or no question.
Jake,
Obviously I Timothy says that a pastor is to be “above reproach” so if there is any unconfessed sin in their life they are disqualified.
Of course, that doesn’t mean, suggest, or imply for even an instant that it’s ok for someone in an open homosexual relationship to be in the ministry since, due to their being in an open homosexual relationship, they’re proving they’re not a Christian anyway. And ALL Christians recognize that. Thanks.
By the way, Jake, if you ever want to pretend like you’re man enough to engage me as something other than a phantom on a blog thread running interference for L’s so she can dodge a question, my email is joe.blackmon72@yahoo.com
Joe,
What is your end-game strategy for comments like “if you ever want to pretend like you’re man enough to [X]”? I’m all for being passionate about your beliefs, but what sense does it make to abuse another person in the comment section of a blog? I hope the irony of you saying these things on an article that is essentially about putting aside divisiveness doesn’t escape you. Speak the truth in love, friend.
Joe,
You are a bully….pure and simple. You refuse to challenge dubious theology in an intelligent and civil manner. There is a message waiting in your email box….go for it.
We can do better than this, guys. At least I believe that we can.
Joe,
You are a bully….pure and simple.
Well, at least we’re clear on that.
There is a message waiting in your email box….go for it.
No there isn’t.
Josh M.
I guess my “endgame” would be to take my vitrol out of this thread and onto email. I mean, there are things that need to be said to someone who equates fat preachers with gay preachers that just can’t be said in a blog comment stream.
Actually, I think it is an excellent idea to take disputes private when they become emotional. I hope you two can work through this in a godly spirit.
Double check your email addy you left for me to meet you at…..I’m waiting.
Triple checked. joe (dot) blackmon seventy two (at) yahoo (dot) com.
Joe,
Dave got the CC I sent to him…..so is something wrong with your email?
Nope, I’ve gotten three emails in the past few hours at that address.
Joe, he copied me and I received it – and the email address is identical to the one you gave here. Just so you know.
Did you double-check your SPAM folder?
Especially if there’s a CC, my filter usually dumps it in the SPAM. I’ve missed a good half-dozen useful emails that way.
Of course, I’ve missed about 200 useless ones.
I actually did check the spam folder. Unless he’s a Nigerian woman who wants my help getting her husband’s estate converted to US dollars and all she needs is my bank account or a Hot Nashville Single waiting to meet tonight it’s not in there either.
Well if you feel froggy my email is jakebarker@sbcglobal.net and remember I ain’t afeered of you nor none of yur kinfolk neither.
Are you sure he’s not the lawyer for the British Lottery letting you know how much you’ve won?
That guy’s been bugging me for weeks.
Christiane,
Christians have had differences of opinion since the early church. One example that jumps to mind is Paul and Barnabas. They disagreed over Mark so they discontinued their joint ministry. I don’t think it’s that hard to make the case that Christians have had differences in convictions about the practice of the Christian faith since the days of the early church. Denominations just formalize some of those differences. If you go to a Baptist church, you should be able to expect baptism by immersion, so on, so forth. It helps a group establish an identity that allows it to attract those who believe similarly for the purpose of effective ministry. Overall, the neighborly separation of different denominations is a functional response to growth and development of Christianity since the time of the apostles.
If you are looking for a biblical quality or teaching that it could be founded in, I would have to say wisdom. It is wise to have neighborly separation of the Church into local churches. This is not to say that the exact structure we have now is necessarily the best possible method of organizing ourselves. In a perfect world, brimming with perfectly Spirit filled Christians, we would read the Bible and be able to discern the truth of some of the more sticky theological and methodological questions we have. Even then, we might still have some separation over the cultural differences or personal preferences like style of music, preaching, etc. In our less than perfect world, we might be able to find a way to join together some of the various denominations, but why should we? When approached as neighborly separation rather than at competition, heretics, or enemies, denominations are effective solutions for the problems we would face if we tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
“When approached as neighborly separation rather than at competition, heretics, or enemies, denominations are effective solutions for the problems we would face if we tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”
Yep!
Hi JIM G. and JOSH,
I want to thank you both for the responses, and for the time that you took to reply to my concern.
I have seen ‘denominations’ as the ‘results of schisms’ over disagreement with doctrine and practice, so this is the first time I can see another perspective that they have some value from another point of view.
Looking at St. Paul and St. Barnabus, the argument (severe contention) seems to have been over whether St. Mark ‘deserted’ his post (as Paul saw it), whereupon Paul did not want to take Mark with them on another Apostolic mission.
Barnabus was willing to give Mark another chance, so the split occurred, but it does not appear to be over what had been ‘given to them’ to ‘pass on’ (teachings);
the split just seems to have been over the behavior of Mark and the sincerity of Mark’s commitment.
So from MY perspective, Acts doesn’t record a ‘schism’ in the
Church producing different teachings within the Church.
I can see your perspectives on this however, and I am grateful for that insight.
So thanks again to both of you.
Christiane
Christiane, your denomination awakens anxieties in Baptists and Protestants due to its past history. As one who has studied all 2000 years of church history from the perspective of those who were not accepted by Rome as legitimate Christians, I find it concerns me that your present pope was the head of that institution which used to be known as the Office of the Holy Inquisition. A lot of people died miserable deaths due to that institution. Baptists were the people who not only advocated the doctrine of relgiious liberty, they were the first to put it into practice in actual law in the founding of the colony of Rhode Island. While all denominations have their problems for sheer length of time and effort, the prize goes to yours. It isn’t tht we are not willing to set down and talk. I even find that I agree with the great evangelist, George Whitefield, “I would preach in the Vatican, if they would let me.” Seems to me the Pope is still claiming to be the head of all Christendom…and wanting perhaps to be the head of all religions. I am sure there true believers, people who are truly saved, in your denomination, but I rather suspect they are so in spite of your denomination and its teachings. Please do not take anything said here as an invite to name calling or indulgence in invective. My feeling on the matter is that we are going to have a Third Great Awakening, one that will win the whole world and every soul in it in one generation and continuing for a total of at least a thousand generations and perhaps reaching to a thousand thousand worlds as and if mankind spreads to the stars. After all, God does seem to have a sense of humor, speaking of the seed of jacob (was it?) being so uncountable as the dust of the earth, and He also let stand the statement concerning the number of the redeemed in Heaven (Rev.7:9) being so great that no one could number them (even the Lord Himself??? as the Greek appears to be in the neuter gender??) Let us add one thing, CH Spurgeon has a sermon on Infanct Salvation. He also said he did not know of any Calvinists who believed ininfant damnation (hard to believe as a few apparently have), but then I suppose he never read Augustine who said Hell was paved with unbaptized infants..Note I do not say this to cause controversy but to provoke some deep thought. After all, if you really want to deal with Southern Baptists attack their Achilles’ Heel, their defense of slavery.
And as to the brick walls, David, the doctrines are two-sided and apparently contradictory (that is the human mind cannot reconcile them..and they were not meant to be reconciled). The two sides of each truth apparently coincide with the right brain, left brain make-up of humans, setting up a tension in the human mind which enables and empowers believers to be balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, and enduring. This two-sidedness is what might well enable us to find the true route to unity in doctrine and behavior, in precept and practice.
Our need is for a synthetical method which avoids the trap set by our present so-called scientific approach, namely, the paralysis of analysis, the narrow, restricted focus that ignores (by requirement) the evidence which does not support the original hypothesis…and which might prove the null hypothesis as well as the original thesis to have merit which means to say the very least we need a bigger or improved synthetical method, if we would truly be scientific and objective. Old John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims said, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word?” Eldresses were accepted in the 1700s in Sandy Creek Assn. in a day, when they would not have dreamed of questioning the word of God or casting doubt on its truthfulness. One of the things that is tgroubling today is that eveyone is sure they undertand the scripture. But it is like my friend who thought the mountain stream was on 2-3 feet deep. he nearly drowned as it was 18-20 feet deep. He said, “I could actually see the grqins of sand rolling along the bottom. It had to be 2-3 feet deep.” So much for our discernment, when we are looking into another medium. And what shall I say about the scriptural medium that is inspired by omniscience. The other day on tv, I heard Dr. Lennox, the mathematician from Oxford University speaking on Fixed Point Foundation,, say that there was a subtlety to Genesis One. First time I have heard any one admit tha there might be more to the Book than we think meets the eye. Every since the late 60s, I have been looking at the Bible in the light of this question: “If the Bible is inspired by the Omniscient Being who created Heaven and Earth, then ought it not to reflect a depth of wisdom commensurate with that fact?” That is why I have found the attacks of the New Atheists ludicrous in the extreme. In my old Atheistic days, I believed nothing of this book, nothing about God, not even that He existed, and I sought to win converts to that position. When Jesus showed up, all of that unbelief got knocked into a cocked hat as the old saying goes.