DOCTRINAL LINES: Where? And How?
Michael P. Andrus
One of the greatest strengths of the Evangelical Free Church may also be an Achilles Heel, namely, its wide toleration of viewpoints not directly addressed in the denominational Statement of Faith. That this is one of our greatest strengths is evident to all who have tried to function under a rigid and detailed doctrinal frame-work. Those of us who came out of a fundamentalist background found that creative or even critical theological thinking is an inevitable casualty when too many issues are nailed down.
One of my most painful memories is of being told by a seminary professor that certain theological conclusions I had drawn were wrong – not because they were based on exegetical error, but because I was “resisting the illumination of the Holy Spirit.” (The only evidence he offered was that I had arrived at a conclusion contrary to his.) After that experience, I found the Free Church to be an incredible breath of theological fresh air.
However, a spirit of doctrinal tolerance also has its downside, as Allen Tunberg’s excellent research on the views of Free Church people concerning “The Destiny of the Unevangelized” makes clear. There is more divergence of opinion on this topic than I expected in our fellowship, and some of the views put forth are quite unorthodox by historical evangelical standards. But since there is no explicit declaration in our Statement of Faith on this question, how should we in the EFCA Ministerial Association respond? Ought we to have an “official” position on the fate of the unevangelized, and if so, what should it be?
Another issue of doctrinal tolerance that has received a great deal of attention in the Free Church and elsewhere is TEDS Professor Murray J. Harris’s views on the nature of the resurrection body. While Harris has repeatedly affirmed the EFCA Statement of Faith “without mental reservation,” he certainly does espouse some unusual views on the nature of Christ’s resurrection body and the resurrection body of the believer. Since our Statement of Faith speaks only of the “fact” of a bodily resurrection and does not describe the “nature” of that body, Dr. Harris has been judged by Free Church leaders to be in compliance. But the controversy raises a legitimate question: just how unusual can a view be and still be acceptable?
A third area where doctrinal tolerance has challenged the EFCA is in regard to the rapture of the church relative to the tribulation. There was a time when the vast majority of our pastors held a pre-tribulational view. Without question, the reference to “imminency” in our Statement of Faith implied a pre-tribulation rapture to most of those approving the Statement of Faith in 1950. But since imminency can be defined in such a way as to allow for other views of the rapture, increasing diversity on this subject has been permitted in our ranks. Is it permissible to abandon the strict constructionist approach to our founding documents and allow doctrinal latitude in this area?
My goal in this article is to examine the issue of where and how to draw lines of acceptable doctrinal beliefs. Clearly our Free Church Statement of Faith draws a number of significant lines for us. But the prior question is, how did the earlier church leaders determine which doctrines merited mention in a Statement of Faith? And were their decisions valid?
There is a framework that can help us evaluate the merits of particular theological issues. But first we must accept the fact that all doctrines are not equally important. Some truths are more theologically central than others; some are more exegetically certain; some receive more biblical emphasis; and some doctrines have been more universally held in the history of the church than others. I believe there are at least four or five levels of theological thought, corresponding roughly to the categories of scientific investigation. Science has historically distinguished between:
1. Law
2. Principle
3. Theory
4. Hypothesis
5. Speculation
These general categories have differing degrees of certainty attached to them. We speak of the “law” of gravity, because gravity partakes of the highest degree of certainty as a “fact” of the physical universe – no one seriously questions it. On the other hand, we speak of the “theory” of evolution (at least creationists do), because there is much about it that is debatable. Whether there is life on other planets is clearly a matter of speculation.
Similarly, I would propose that there are at least four levels of theological thought. Again, these are general categories only and the names attached to them are somewhat arbitrary:
1. Dogma (= scientific law)
2. Doctrine (= scientific principle)
3. Theory (= scientific theory or hypothesis)
4. Speculation (= scientific speculation)
The question is, how do we decide which theological views are “dogma,” and therefore indisputable; which are “doctrine,” and thus uncompromisable; which are “theory,” and open to debate; and which are mere “speculation,” and warrant little more than our curiosity? It is clearly not sufficient to base such decisions on mere feelings or tradition or even on the illumination of the Holy Spirit, for none of these alone provides a sufficient basis for solving disputes.
However, there are four factors which, if kept in proper perspective, can help us determine how to categorize ideas properly: (1) exegetical certainty, (2) theological importance, (3) biblical emphasis, and (4) historical agreement in the church.
To illustrate how one might prioritize theological views, let me suggest a four-sided pyramid of theological thought: The apex of the pyramid represents theological dogma; i.e., those truths which have the highest exegetical certainty, the greatest theological importance, the strongest biblical emphasis, and the most uniform historical agreement. Let’s take a few doctrinal issues and see where they might fit on the pyramid.
Consider first the vicarious atonement of Christ. The exegetical certainty of this truth is extremely high; its theological importance is paramount; there are numerous Scripture passages in both Testaments that attest to it; and it has been considered a dogma of the church from the first century. Thus, I would place the vicarious atonement of Christ in the pyramid’s apex.
What about the proper mode of baptism? In my assessment the exegetical certainty for immersion baptism is pretty solid; the biblical emphasis is relatively low; the theological importance is quite debatable; and diverse views continue to exist in the orthodox church. I would place mode of baptism somewhere in the “theory” category. (Bear in mind that the fact of baptism is at least in the “doctrine” category, if not “dogma,” even if the mode of baptism is not.)
Consider a third issue: the salvation of infants. I recognize that this subject has a very high level of theological importance, particularly to people who have lost an infant in death. And the orthodox church has nearly always held to some form of infant salvation. However, the Scriptural emphasis is sparse (one or two references), and the exegetical certainty arising from those passages is quite low. As much as I would like to have a “doctrine” of infant salvation, I feel constrained to offer only a “theory” regarding it. I happen to believe that theory as much as I believe some doctrines (due more to theological deduction than to exegetical evidence), but the fact that it is a theory precludes me from expecting others to agree.
Let’s take a final example – the issue of divorce and remarriage. The biblical emphasis is once again strong – the subject appears in the Old Testament and the New, in the Gospels and in the Epistles. The theological importance is indisputable, especially as the rate of divorce increases, even among believers. The exegetical certainty, however, is not all we would like it to be. While I am comfortable with the conclusions on this subject drawn by the Free Church position paper in the early 1980s, I also recognize that honest evangelical scholars have taken other positions (some more conservative and some more liberal), and they have offered reasoned justification. I would place divorce and remarriage in the “doctrine” category. However, I understand why some would place divorce at a “doctrine” level and remarriage at a “theory” level.
The best way to get the hang of this exercise in categorizing issues using the pyramid is to take a list of theological issues and place them where you think they belong. Try it with these:
1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The fact of the rapture of the Church
3. The time of the rapture of the Church
4. Dispensationalism
5. The Trinity
6. The deity of Christ
7. The Virgin Birth
8. Animal immortality
9. Man as a tripartite being
If frustration sets in, it may be helpful to realize that the process is perhaps more important than the result. The process of prioritizing forces us to think rationally and biblically about the factors that determine the degree of dogmatism we are willing to attach to any particular truth. As we practice placing our views on the pyramid, we are learning to think theologically.
What are some of the benefits of this exercise? First, we are able to make informed decisions about appropriate levels of fellowship. One of the difficulties we as pastors face is the degree of cooperation we should extend to other pastors, churches, and groups that are theologically different from us. A well-thought-out position on the levels of theological belief should help us make wiser choices. For example, I may choose to steer clear of any group that denies truths I consider dogma; cooperate in a limited way with those who have different doctrines; and accept wholeheartedly those who differ from me only in areas of theory or speculation.
Second, an understanding of the levels of theological thought can aid us with leadership decisions in the local church. For instance, we may require agreement on both dogma and doctrine issues when choosing pastors and elders, while admitting people to membership may require their agreement only on matters of dogma. Such a distinction is based upon the assumption that agreement on theological issues is more important among the leaders than it is among the rank-and-file members of our congregation.
Third, determining the levels of theological thought may offer a rational basis for doctrinal discipline in a denomination or local church. If a scientist were to deny the validity of a scientific law, he would likely excommunicate himself from the scientific community. He might eliminate himself altogether, should he act upon his denial by challenging the law of gravity from atop a 20-story building! But a scientist is not normally excommunicated for either questioning or postulating a hypothesis (unless the pressure for politically correct thinking becomes too great). So too, theologians should not be silenced for espousing a theory or making a speculation which does not contradict the Statement of Faith under which they are operating. Those who contradict accepted dogma do merit disciplinary action, however.
Finally, recognizing levels of theological thought is very useful when it comes to writing or evaluating a Statement of Faith. In my opinion, a Statement of Faith should include every point a particular group considers dogma (as defined earlier as truths of the highest degree of theological importance, exegetical certainty, biblical emphasis, and historical uniformity). These truths should be spelled out clearly. (My belief is that the legitimate dogmas of the Christian faith number fewer than ten.)
In addition, a Statement of Faith should steer clear of all matters which fall into the categories of theory or speculation. Historically, writers of creeds have been notorious for inserting viewpoints that were current “hot buttons,” but which lacked any basis of theological importance, biblical certainty, biblical emphasis, or historical uniformity. The Westminster Confession, for example, identifies the Pope as the Anti-Christ; requires that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper be administered by an ordained person; teaches the “foreordination” of the non-elect to everlasting death; forbids participation in sports on the Christian Sabbath; and claims that the Covenant of Works is a biblical covenant.
The most difficult decisions to be grappled with in writing or evaluating a Statement of Faith come in the category of doctrine (defined as truths with a fairly high degree of importance, certainty, emphasis, and uniformity). This category may be a large one, and some of these truths may be very important to particular denominations, churches, or organizations. But including such issues in a creed or Statement of Faith requires a trade-off. If not only all dogmas but also many doctrines are to be nailed down, there will be a price paid in theological freedom, creativity, and critical thinking. The group as a whole may be more uniform, but it will also be more narrow and rigid in certain ways. On the other hand, if the church or organization wants to keep a Statement of Faith brief by focusing primarily on dogma, it must be prepared to accept a significant level of diversity, even on issues that are highly controversial.
In The Evangelical Free Church of America our relatively brief Statement has generally served us well. It was written 43 years ago, and few doctrinal controversies have arisen during this period. Perhaps some “fudging” has taken place (on the imminency issue, for example), but few would claim that major theological erosion has occurred.[i]
However, the next several decades may not prove so peaceful. Issues such as the fate of the unevangelized, the premillennial/amillennial controversy, and women’s ordination are coming to the fore in evangelicalism at large, And the limits of our tolerance will be pushed. The EFCA will be forced as never before to think carefully and precisely about theological and biblical issues. It may even be valuable to strengthen our Statement of Faith by adding any dogmas that have been left out (e.g., the existence of Satan, demons, and angels), eliminating any theory or speculation, keeping doctrine issues to an absolute minimum, and removing ambiguity wherever possible. Such an evaluation of the EFCA Statement of Faith would take a carefully chosen commission several years to accomplish, but the result may enable us to move into the 21st century better equipped to “rightly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim.2:15). It is a great challenge which should be eagerly accepted.
[i] This article was written in 1993. In 2008 a new Statement of Faith was adopted by the EFCA, one that removed some of the ambiguities but retained an emphasis on the essentials of the faith. In 2018 the term “premillennial” was removed and replace by the term “glorious” in describing the return of Christ.