What do you do when…

Jason just graduated from seminary. Overjoyed this hurdle is now behind him he sends out his resume and a few months later he is sitting before an elder board answering questions. The more they talk the more he likes the elders and the elders like him. The elders are wise, patient, and in great need of a pastor. They admire Jason’s energetic youth, fiery preaching, and big plans for evangelizing the community, discipling new believers, and training believers for the ministry. One month later the elders send him an offer and the young man’s family is packing their bags to take on this new position.

Two months go by. Jason has been preaching the word faithfully, counseling people struggling in sin, and attending elder meetings. But one Sunday a Sunday school teacher (who is an elder) starts teaching infant baptism to his class. The young pastor sticks this topic on the agenda for the next elders meeting and to his dismay he discovers that half the elders believe in infant baptism and half do not. The turmoil continues on for three months. The news leaks out and the church members are talking about it. Over time Jason notices that during Sunday services the infant-baptizers are sitting on one side of the auditorium and those who reject it on the other. The roots of gossip sink deeper until Jason’s wife finds herself shunned by some ladies and embraced by others. What went wrong? If you were in the pastor’s shoes what would you do now? What would you have done differently if you could redo the candidating process?

Susan has sung in the choir for 25 years. She loves to sing and she loves to worship. But one Sunday she is mortified to find a drum set sitting on the platform. Last Sunday the new drummer lets out a drum roll that made her stomach turn over. Infuriated, she meets with the worship leader and tells him that she cannot sing in a church with drums. But she does not come alone. She brings half the choir with her. Putting yourself in the worship leader’s shoes, what would you do? What could you have done years before to prevent this?

Derek is passionate about evangelism. He witnesses to everyone who crosses his path. Find him at the movie theatre, in the park, or on the basketball court and you’ll find him telling somebody about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Derek also attends a solid, Bible-preaching church. This church is deep into the Word, but their passion to see the lost saved is something next to meager. This bothers Derek so he meets with one of the pastors. The pastor appreciates Derek’s passion and tells him that if he wants to see a change it needs to start with Derek. So Derek grabs a group of senior high students and takes them witnessing. In short time the pastors ask Derek to teach a class on evangelism which God grows and blesses.

The pastors and elders smell a change in the tide as the church goes from apathy to passion to see the lost saved. But then one day Derek approaches the elders board about an opportunity. Derek would like to join forces with a local Pentecostal, tongue-speaking, miraculous-healing congregation for joint evangelism ventures. The staff pastors applaud the idea since they agree on the core doctrines of the gospel even though they differ in the gifts. They feel that there is no harm standing alongside a brother in Christ who believes in the same Christ and the same gospel even though he disagrees on the use of gifts today. But most of the lay elders differ with Derek and affirm that they will have nothing to do with a church who believes in the same doctrines about spiritual gifts that Benny Hinn teaches. Due to the lack of unanimity, Derek’s proposal is turned down. In frustration and anger, Derek leaves the church and twenty five percent of the people go with him. If you were on the elder’s board, what would be your response to Derek’s proposal? Who was right and who was wrong?

The Big Question

Stories like these happen all the time, and if you haven’t seen it yet, you probably will. The big question behind all these true-to-life fictitious scenarios is how does a church decide which doctrines it will fight over, and which it will allow room for difference? By what standard does it determine the differences between unchanging principles and personal preferences? I have personally attended churches that branded dispensationalists as worldly people. I have seen Christians certain of Christ’s 1,000 year reign accuse amillennialists of reforming back to Roman Catholicism. A single drum has split churches right down the center. Droves of people have left churches because the pastor would not marry an elder’s daughter to an unbeliever. Some of these topics have turned congregations into such a boiling pot of friction, hate, and anger that people have left one by one until the church breathes its last and nothing is left but a cold empty building put up for closure. And why? Because two deacons couldn’t agree on how the missions funds should be used. Or because a church member wanted contemporary music instead of traditional. Or because one elder accused another elder of dissipation for having a glass of wine.

And some topics are riddled with friction because it will be a rare day in May when you find two believers who agree on every single minute point of doctrine. And yet the question is important because a solution will save God’s people hours of heated debates and decrease the plagues of gossip, backbiting, black mailing, church splitting, and most importantly of shaming the name of Jesus Christ before the eyes of the world. A church who cannot address these issues before they explode into fires of hate has given God’s enemies occasion to blaspheme (2 Sam 12:14).  Sometimes church splits or mass exoduses are necessary. But Robert C. Chapman said it right, "The ruin of a kingdom is a little thing in God's sight, in comparison with division among a handful of sinners redeemed by the blood of Christ."¹

Breaking down the issue

In an effort to simplify the issue, I have tried to divide the puzzle into three parts, each receiving its own geometrical shape to simplify identification:

I do not pronounce this as the final word, but rather find it a helpful clarification of the levels of importance of the issues Christians fight over. Following is a detailed explanation.

The Circle of Orthodoxy

1. The Circle of Orthodoxy contains the universal bare minimum, non-negotiable, core doctrines of the Christian faith. Whether you be Methodist or Baptist, dispensational or reformed, these principles can never be negotiated and will always be fully embraced by the true church.  
2. By distinction, the Circle of Orthodoxy draws the line between Christian and non-Christian and marks the line of demarcation from heresy, cults, and rank paganism. For someone to reject these truths would be to reject God, Jesus Christ, and the whole of Christianity. Believing in these is necessary to be forgiven of one’s sins. 
3. By definition, the Circle of Orthodoxy is the person and work of Jesus Christ. The Circle of Orthodoxy includes who Christ is (God and man) and what He did (death and resurrection). In effect, this circle presupposes that the believer trusts the Bible as the God-breathed Word which means that the autographs though written down by humans were fully and truly from God. 
4. Without this conviction, the Christian cannot believe that what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection is true. For someone to believe in Jesus Christ, he must know Whom he is believing in. This means that he will believe that God is a good and holy God who punishes sin, yet also merciful and gracious who can forgive sin. This naturally leads to the conviction that humanity is sinful and in need of a Savior. If you prune this circle of orthodoxy down to the root, you still find the core belief lying in the person and work of Jesus Christ. 
5. By practice, a church’s circle of orthodoxy will usually be spelled out in its statement of faith.

The Square of Convictions

1. The Square of Convictions contains all local non-negotiable, beliefs on Bible doctrine. This will include anything form end times theology to the doctrine of angels or baptism.
2. By distinction, the Square of Convictions draws the line between denominations and churches. The leadership (and sometimes membership) of each church must agree on its own Square of Convictions. The Square of Conviction makes each church unique in its own beliefs. Two good men can disagree on the Square of Conviction and still go to heaven, whereas the Circle of Orthodoxy gives no room for disagreement. Other churches may have variances on the square of convictions and still fall within the circle of orthodoxy.   
3. By definition, the Square of Convictions includes those doctrines that a church chooses to take a firm stand on that they will not negotiate. 
4. By practice, a church’s Square of Convictions is typically spelled out in its doctrinal statement. It makes a stand on questions like: “Is there a rapture before or after the tribulation? Are the miraculous gifts still valid today? Should periods of the Bible be divided into dispensations or should we embrace three major covenants?” 
5. The Square of Convictions usually becomes the deciding point at how much a church will participate with other churches. Many solid churches will allow a preacher who believes in infant baptism (like R. C. Sproul) speak at their church as long as he respects their conviction against pedo-baptism. But a Baptist congregation may prefer not to do joint evangelism ventures with a Foursquare Gospel charismatic church. Ultimately, this decision must be left to the wisdom of the elders of each individual church. Scripture makes no clear mandate on this issue, thus, God left it to elders to apply the principles of Scripture with all wisdom to make their own choices.

The Triangle of Flexibility

1. The Triangle of Flexibility is always negotiable. This includes any personal preferences that are not directly addressed in Scripture.
2. If the Circle of Orthodoxy draws the line between heretic and saint, and if the Square of Convictions draws the line between individual Christian churches or denominations, then the Triangle of Flexibility draws the line between the personal preferences of each individual Christian. 
3. By definition the Triangle of Flexibility is where each church makes room for disagreement on minor issues. This includes differences in minor doctrines, ministry methods, interpretations of difficult passages, or just plain personal preferences. A minor doctrinal issue would be whether or not the soul of a human who dies in infancy will go to heaven. A ministry method would be whether a church should use Bible study evangelism or door-to-door evangelism. A Bible interpretation issue would ask “Where did Paul go when he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2)?” And a personal preference might be whether a member decides to hold his hands up during worship, or keep them down. This is where the church takes each challenge as it comes and addresses each one uniquely according to principle instead of policy. 

Of course every church will differ on what topics they believe are flexible, convictions, or orthodox. Some will make complete abstinence from alcohol a requirement for eldership, thus putting it in the Square of Convictions. Others will let each elder make his own choice on this matter as long as he is not enslaved to alcohol (Rom 6:22).

A church who places minor issues not clearly defined in Scripture into the Square of Convictions camps on the plain of legalism. A church, however, who places too many matters into the Triangle of Flexibility tends to develop a body of spiritually anemic people. Ironically, more churches divide over topics in the Triangle of Flexibility than the other two categories. Churches putting Circle of Orthodoxy topics into the Triangle of Flexibility have gone heretical.

The circle of orthodoxy distinguishes a Christian from a non-Christian. The square of convictions distinguishes one church (or denomination) from another, and the triangle of convictions distinguishes one Christian from another Christian. 

Hot topics...

Following is a sample of key topics that every church leader would be wise to think through and decide where these topics go on the three-tiered scale and which (if any) will be taught). This can aid in avoiding division and gives guidance for leaders to faithfully shepherd the flock and protect it from harm. As you read these, you’ll probably have a quite gut reaction to many of them. But before you condone or reject any of them, ask yourself: Can I defend this clearly from Scripture? Or is this just a personal conviction?

• Abortion. Is it right to take the life of the unborn?
• Alcohol. Is it okay to drink wine with dinner? What about coffee with breakfast?
• Baptism. Who should be baptized, when should they be baptized, and what is the proper method of baptism?
• Birth control. Does this practice take life out of God's control?
• Charismatic theology. Can/should the church speak in tongues and practice miracle healings today?
• Church discipline. What do you do with a church member living in unrepentant sin? What are the steps for handling this?
• Cosmetic surgery. Is this sinful or is it acceptable? If altering one’s appearance is sinful then what about ear-piercing, teeth braces, tanning booths, and contact lens? 
• Counseling. Is it wrong to suggest the use of drugs in counseling? Is there such a thing as chemical imbalances or is the problem only spiritual? Does psychology have any place in counseling? How will the church provide counseling? A counseling pastor? A sharing of the load by the elders? The body of members?
• Dancing. Can dancing be done to the glory of God? Are certain kinds of dancing okay and other kinds not acceptable?
• Deaconesses. Does the Bible teach that there can be deaconesses in a local church or is Paul simply referring to the wives of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11?
• Direct revelation. Does God still speak to people today like He did to the prophets? Does God give subtle messages and impression to His people? Or is the Bible God’s only method of communicating to His people?
• Divorce. Can a divorced believer be re-married? Is adultery always a justification for divorce? Is it ever a justification for divorce? What do you do with a husband who is beating his wife?
• Driving. Is it a sin to break the speed limit if that’s what it takes to keep pace with the traffic? 
• Ecumenicalism. How far should the church go in joining forces with other local churches? How inclusive should the church be when it comes to gray issues? When has a church become so inclusive that it is no longer honoring the Word of God? 
• Education. Is it more spiritual to attend a Christian college than a public university? Should parents send their kids to homeschool, Christian school, or public school? 
• Emergent/Emerging. Where do we stand regarding the emergent movement? 
• Evangelism methodology. Are there superior and inferior methods in evangelism? Evangelism Explosion, Way of the Master, or personal testimony? Is it manipulation to call believers forward to an altar or to encourage them to sign a card?
• Exercise. At one point is working-out worshipping one’s body?  
• Expositional preaching. What is expositional preaching? Is topical preaching necessarily non-expositional?
• Fairy Tales. Is singing about Santa Clause, the Easter Rabbit, or the Tooth Fairy teaching my children a lie? 
• Finances. How will the church raise funds? How will it determine how much to pay its pastors? Will they be employees of the church? Will the church give the pastor a library fund? What if he needs a printer? Does he pay for this or does the church? Will the church reimburse him for ministry expenses like taking someone to lunch, miles, paper, ink, office supplies etc.? What is its policy for church building improvements, secretarial staff, support staff, donations to other ministries etc.?
• Hair. Long hair or short for men and women? 
• Hell. Is it forever or is the unbeliever incinerated?
• Hermeneutics. What is the proper method of interpretation of the Bible? What is the difference between allegories in the Bible and allegorical tools of interpretation? 
• Holidays. Is celebrating Christmas in our consumer society sinful? What about trick-or-treating? 
• House. Is there a limit to how decorative one’s home can be? 
• Leadership. Who should lead the church? A senior pastor? An elders board? A single pastor with a deacons board? What are the qualifications for being a leader? What do you do with a leader who has fallen into reproachable sin?
• Legalism. What is legalism? Is a teacher legalistic if he commands the sheep to repent and obey God? Is a teacher legalistic if he tells his flock they should be praying three times a day? 
• Lord ’s Supper. Are Christ’s body and blood literally present in any way during communion? Or should the church only do this in remembrance of Him? Should the church use grape juice or wine? Leavened or unleavened bread?
• Marriage. What is the biblical definition of marriage? What about roles in marriage or should there be any? 
• Movies. Does Christian liberty allow the believer to watch a PG-13 or R-rated movie? What does Christian liberty mean? 
• Missions. What is the church’s objective for missions? What is the process for sending out missionaries? How much money will it allocate to missions? What about short term mission trips?
• Music. Can a Christian listen to secular music or should it only be Christian? Are hymns necessarily superior to contemporary worship songs? Should the church use drums? 
• New Perspective. This is a modern idea proposing that a Christian is not justified now but at the judgment day. What stance will the church leadership take on this issue? 
• Open Theism. This is a modern idea claiming that God does not know all things, but learns things as He goes. What is the church’s stance on this subject? 
• Para-church ministries. Should the church support, participate in, or lead ministries not under the government of the local church? Does the New Testament’s example of local elder leadership in each church make para-church ministries sinful or just not as effective?
• Parenting. Is it okay to spank your child? Or are those Proverbs passages metaphorical? What about dual incomes homes versus stay-at-home Moms or Dads? 
• Piercing. Is it sinful to pierce one’s ears? If not, what about other places like the belly, nose, tongue, lip, eyebrow, and genitals? 
• Politics. Within the limits of being a 501(c)(3) organization, what should the leaderships’ involvement be with politics and expressing their position on certain views? Should Christians vote Democrat or Republican? 
• Role of women in the church. Is it acceptable for a woman to teach men in the church? Can a woman be an elder? If it is not acceptable, what is the male cutoff age that makes it no longer acceptable for a woman to teach him? Teenage years? The Jewish bar mitzvah of age 12? 
• Seeker friendlyism. Should we make church services more casual to make unbelievers more comfortable? Is the seeker friendly movement’s passion for evangelism discredited by their watered down gospel message? Are there certain elements of seeker friendlyism that we can learn from? 
• Smoking. Is it a sin to smoke cigarettes, cigars, or pipes? Is it a sin to chew tobacco? If so, then where does the Bible teach or imply this?
• Swimsuits. Two piece or one?
• Tattoos. Are tattoos sinful, especially in light of the Old Testament’s ban of tattooing (Lev 19:28)? What about Jesus’ tattoo in Revelation 19:16? 
• Tithe. Does the Bible state how much Christians should give? How should tithing be taught? Should the church leadership see how much people are giving and hold them accountable? 
• Video games. Which ones are okay and how much is too much? 
• Wednesday night church service. What about attending a mid-week service versus allowing children to be involved in a sport?
• Workaholism. How does one know when he is working so much it’s an obsession or working so little it’s laziness? 
• Worship. Is it biblical to call certain styles of music sinful? Or is it just the words and content that matter? Hymns or contemporary praise songs? Or something in between? What about drums and electric guitars?

As daunting as it may be, church leaders need to come to grips with these kinds issues if they are to avoid future heartache and shepherd the sheep effectively. Countless hours of meetings and discussion can be saved when the church leadership decides how to handle issues like these ahead of time. This is not to say that a position paper needs to be drafted for every topic. But it would be wise for the church leadership to sort out which kinds of issues fall into the Triangle of Flexibility, which in the Square of Convictions, and which in the Circle of Orthodoxy. The answer to some of these topics should be obvious. Finding the answer to others may require many hours of study and seeking help from God. And many should be left open to the personal preference of the church members. But the joy and blessing of the labor of sorting through things like these will far outweigh the pain of getting there.

Common Questions...

1. If the Bible never contradicts itself and if the believer has power by the Holy Spirit to understand what it teaches (1 John 2:27), why do Christian churches separate into different denominations and beliefs? In other words, why doesn’t everyone agree on everything?

• Lack of sanctification. Because we are still sinners, sin effects not only our ability to reason with objectivity (Eph 4:18), but our personal experiences, cultures, traditions, and egos weaken our ability to be fair with the text. A believer’s current walk with God and as well as his gifting and training will carry huge influence on his wisdom in interpreting and applying the Scriptures to all of life. If you had the choice, would you rather read 100 biographies on Spurgeon’s life or spend a year with Spurgeon himself? Of course you’d pick the latter because as Spurgeon himself said, “A grain of experience is worth a pound of information.” In the same way, a man who practices the Book will be able to interpret the Book far better than the scholar living in unrepentant sin though he can read Hebrew and Greek backwards, and studies ten hours a day.
• Lack of training. A newborn child does not come from the womb chatting, telling jokes, and solving math equations. He must learn these skills through hours of training and brain development. In the same way, a man untrained in the original languages and untutored in principles of Bible interpretation will find it harder to interpret difficult passages than the devoted student who has been trained by those who have done this for decades. 
• Lack of knowledge. The more a believer knows about Scripture, the better he will interpret Scripture for Scripture’s best interpreter is itself. Without knowing Isaiah’s prophecy of a virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14), Matthew’s record of Jesus’ birth would lose great significance (Mat 1:23). Without knowing the background of the Judges period, some of the events of the book of Ruth would be much harder to understand. Paul’s emphasis on faith (Rom 3:28) balances out James’ emphasis on works (James 2:24). The student who has spent countless hours in the Scriptures is far better qualified to interpret them than the new believer who has read the Bible once.  

2. Where do you draw the line between heretic and brother, evangelical and cult?

At the person and work of Jesus Christ and the inspiration of God’s Word. Paul lived and died for the gospel and that gospel was written down as God’s holy Word. This is why he wrote to the Galatians,

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Gal 1:8-9).

The only hills on which Paul was willing to lose his life were those where the person and work of Jesus Christ was assaulted. In Romans he heralded the redemption by Christ, in 1 Corinthians the resurrection of Christ, in 2 Corinthians reconciliation by Christ, in Galatians freedom through Christ, in Ephesians the headship of Christ, in Philippians the believer’s joy in Christ, in Colossians the supremacy of Christ, in 1 Thessalonians the expectation of Christ, in 2 Thessalonians the glorification by Christ, in 1 Timothy the battle for Christ, in 2 Timothy the preaching of Christ, in Titus the deity of Christ, and in Philemon the believer’s suffering for Christ. From day one of his conversion, Paul spent his life proclaiming Jesus Christ the king. In Paul’s very first sermons as a new believer, he preached a very simple sermon of Christ, crying out, “He is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20).

Jesus Christ is not only the golden theme of Paul’s letters but every other book in the New Testament as well. In Hebrews, Christ is the perfect priest and sacrifice, in James He is the teacher, in 1 Peter He is the example of godly suffering, and in 2 Peter He is the coming Rescuer. In John’s epistles He is God in the flesh, in Jude He is the One in whom the believer is eternally secure, and in Revelation He is the Almighty King. Christ is the spotless line of golden thread connecting every book, every theme, every word of Scripture back to the suffering of His first coming and the glory of His second.

3. Would you allow someone like R. C. Sproul to teach at your church on a topic you agree on even though he hold to other doctrines you don’t agree with like infant baptism and post-millennialism?

Yes, I would. I have no problem inviting other solid preachers who may differ on less major issues. Let’s face it. Martin Luther believed in infant baptism (which I disagree with) and yet I hate to think where you and I might be had God not raised up this champion of the gospel—and others like him—to battle for the truth.

I know of one pastor who removed himself from membership in the Christian Business Men’s Association when they elected a leader who embraced theistic evolution. For good cause he did not want to be on the ship when it sunk. But others go further and refuse to associate with anyone who embraces any doctrine they disagree with. Although I would not pastor a church whose eldership believes in theistic evolution, I do not believe this is biblical grounds for excommunicating every Christian or association who holds this view.

4. How unified in doctrine do elders need to be? Must they agree on absolutely everything? If not, how do you determine what is significant and what is not? (such as end times views—some churches allow for different end times views among their members and even leadership, and some do not).

Every church will vary in their answer to this approach. I believe that the major doctrines of bibliology (Bible), theology (God), Christology (Christ), pneumatology (Holy Spirit), soteriology (salvation), anthropology (man), hamartiology (sin), angelology (Satan, demons, and angels), ecclesiology (the church) and eschatology (end times) need to be decided on not only to avoid church splits and division, but these themes are so huge throughout Scripture that I don’t see how a pastor could treat something so obviously important to God with such indifference.

For example, if one does not believe that God created the universe, he has to either metaphorize Genesis 1-2 or outright reject it. If he does this with the first two chapters, why not go a little further and call the Great Flood a metaphor and the Tower of Babel a fiction. But why stop there? If we can’t accept the first book of the Bible literally, then why should we accept any of it? Dr. John Barnnett illustrated it beautifully. As a child he was wearing a nice sweater one day when he noticed a loose thread. He decided he’d get rid of the evidence by pulling on it. But the more he pulled the greater a gap was created until he was left with a massive hole in his sweater. All of the Bible is connected, so to reject one major doctrine requires one to change his view about the next one and the next, until he has literally unwound the entire Bible.

At the same time, godly men and women will disagree on lesser points of doctrine. A close friend of mine believes in a post-tribulational rapture of the church whereas I am convinced of the pre-tribulational rapture. In all love to him as a dear brother, I could not be on the same elder board as he, not to spite him, but in protection of the flock. When people of your own flock see their elders differing on fairly major topics it throws them into a whirlwind of confusion and insecurity. Suddenly, they are more concerned about their elder’s differences then their own walk with Christ. However, each church must decide where to draw that line, and I believe that the safest place to draw it is on their doctrinal statement. The leaders and teachers need to agree on this.

5. What about church membership? Should someone in all good conscience have to sign the doctrinal statement to become an official member? What if he agrees in all area but one? Then what?

I believe that it’s far more important for the leaders to agree on the Square of Convictions than every member. For someone to sign a doctrinal statement, it is important that he knows why he believes those things and can defend them with the Bible. But many members in solid, Bible-teaching churches are unable to sufficiently defend every point of the doctrinal statement they signed, but rather sign it because it doesn’t differ with any convictions they do hold, and for the parts they couldn’t prove from the Bible, they trust and respect their leaders’ convictions. And this is fine. However, I’d suggest a far more detailed doctrinal statement for leaders than for members, this way the leaders can be ensured of unity, and it gives members a chance to sort through the doctrines of God’s Word and study them hard so that over time they can grow to understand and believe these doctrines out of conviction and not just believe it because that’s what their leaders said. This increases the drive behind intentional discipleship of leaders from within the body, requiring for them to be able to defend the doctrinal statement of the leaders before becoming a leader.

Unique cases arise when a member cannot sign a doctrinal statement with a clear conscience because one point on it differs from his convictions. This may be a time for elders to implement principle instead of policy. Policy makes things easy. We have a rule and we go by that rule. But principles requires the leaders to investigate the situation and make a judgment case by case.
Not too long ago a long time attendee and choir member of a mega-church ran into this very issue. Upon the recommendation of the worship pastor, he attended the membership class and gladly embraced every doctrine except one: baptism of believers only. Convinced that the New Testament apostles taught infant baptism he could not sign the doctrinal statement without lying. Seeing that he was a faithful man and one who did not run around trying to convert others in the church body to his position, the elders asked him to write a paper defending his position. I must add that he did not believe that baptism of infants gives any kind of salvation or salvific grace to their souls, but that it brings blessing to them in their future years and makes them a member of the local body.

The non-member attendee did as he was requested, and presented the elders with a very detailed and elaborate defense of his position. After serious prayer and discussion the elders came to the conclusion that he had defended his position so well, and had handled the entire situation so graciously, that they would grant him membership in spite of his differing position on baptism. Whether or not you agree with their decision, this elder board exemplified a commitment to principle instead of policy. Remember that many men we love to quote (John Calvin, Martin Luther, St. Augustine) could not become an elder at many of our churches today because of one or two doctrinal positions that many of use would view as totally aberrant.  The model of the elders’ approach provides an example of wisdom and grace.  

In 1 Timothy, Paul draws a hard line to distinguish those who proclaim Christ from those who consume themselves with pointless bickering over lesser doctrines:

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain (1 Tim 6:3-5).

Endnotes

1. Robert L. Peterson  and Alexander Strauch, Agape Leadership: Lessons in Spiritual Leadership from the Life of R. C. Chapman (Colorado Springs: Lewis and Roth, 1991), 33.