« The Temple Priests Have Spoken | Main | Weapon's of Mass Destruction and Mustard Gas? »

Controversies, Conflict and Division in the Reformed Community

John Frame recently wrote an article on J. Gesham Machen which concluded, among other things, that

I have enumerated twenty-two areas of conflict occurring in American conservative Reformed circles from 1936 to the present. Under some of those headings I have mentioned subdivisions, subcontroversies. Most of these controversies have led to divisions in churches and denominations and harsh words exchanged between Christians. People have been told that they are not Reformed, even that they have denied the gospel. Since Jesus presents love as that which distinguishes his disciples from the world (Jn. 13:34-35), this bitter fighting is anomalous in a Christian fellowship. Reformed believers need to ask what has driven these battles. To what extent has this controversy been the fruit of the Spirit, and to what extent has it been a work of the flesh?

I’ve often joked that within some Christian communities where "two or three are gathered" there is room for division.

In pondering the many reasons why divisions occur it seems to me that there is often a misrepresentation of other positions to strengthen one’s own theological belief. The way this can occur is to make an assumption, such as, if they believe X then they have denied the faith. Such an argument is simply an assertion and not a proof of error (circular reasoning). Another manner that this occurs is through the extrapolation of a particular view well beyond the belief held by an individual (straw man argument). "What is the trajectory of this belief," has, at times, been asked. Of course the proposed trajectory is conveniently a much easier position to argue against. Just because a person believes that further down the line a particular viewpoint will lead to gross error does not mean the view is a gross error. (this is not to say that the implications of a particular belief are not relevant to a given argument)

Recently I observed an example of this when a respected scholar publicly stated that a Christian missionary held to a pantheistic belief because of a view he proposed regarding the covenantal relationship of the trinity. This was done despite the fact that the missionary holds firmly to the truth that there is One God. However, the extrapolated pantheistic belief system is much easier to argue against than is the theological view that the missionary actually holds.

Frame makes another excellent point by stating

Overall, the quality of thought displayed in these polemics has not been a credit to the Reformed tradition. Writers have gone to great lengths to read their opponents' words and motivations in the worst possible sense (often worse than possible) and to present their own ideas as virtually perfect, rightly motivated and leaving no room for doubt. Such presentations are scarcely credible to anybody who looks at the debates with minimal objectivity.

Finally, while not agreeing with Frame on all of the positions he espouses, I join him by longing for a Christian community in which the following are true.

That Reformed thinkers continue to have bright, fresh ideas, but that they present these ideas with humility and treat with grace and patience those who are not immediately convinced.
That Reformed thinkers with bright ideas discourage the rapid formation of parties to contend for those ideas.
That those initially opposed to those bright ideas allow some time for gentle, thoughtful discussion before declaring the bright ideas to be heresy.
That these opponents also discourage the rapid formation of partisan groups.
That those contending for various doctrinal positions accept the burden of proof, willing to bear the difficulty of serious biblical exegesis.
That we try much harder to guard our tongues (Jas. 3:1-12), saving the strongest language of condemnation (e.g., 'denying the gospel') for those who have been declared heretics by the judicial processes of the church.
That Reformed churches, ministries and institutions be open to a wider range of opinions than they are now — within limits, of course.
That we honour one another as much for character and witness as we do for agreement with our theological positions.
That occasionally we smile and jest about our relatively minor differences, while praying, worshipping and working together in the love of Christ.

Posted by tim at June 24, 2004 3:07 PM

Articles Related to Theology: