Does the Doctrine Divide? by Patience Griswold

“Oh, I try not to talk about doctrine. It’s so divisive.” This is a sentiment that I’ve heard expressed, as well as implied, on many occasions, and one that raises the question, does doctrine divide? In answering this question, we must keep in mind a very important truth and that is that everyone holds to some sort of doctrine. “Doctrine” is defined as “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.” Regardless of whether or not someone publicly holds to a statement of beliefs from a particular church, every Christian, by definition, holds to a particular set of beliefs. As Carl Trueman observes in his book The Creedal Imperative, 

     [W]hile Christianity cannot be reduced to doctrine, to mere teaching, it cannot be meaningfully separated from it, either. Even the most basic claims, such as “Jesus is Lord,” carry clear doctrinal content that needs to be explicated in a world where, as we have noted before, every heretic has his text and not all who cry “Lord! Lord!” actually have any real saving knowledge of God. That this will inevitably involve exclusion is indisputable.

On its most basic level, doctrine divides believers from unbelievers; those who are in Christ from those who are not. Being able to articulate the core tenants of the Christian faith is necessary in order to guard against heresy, persevere and encourage one another in the faith, and preach the gospel to the lost. Every Christian believes in doctrine.

But when someone says that they avoid doctrine because doctrine divides, they are not usually referring to the core tenets of the Christian faith. Rather than referring to the doctrines that divide the church from the world, they are referring to doctrines that divide believers from other believers. Dividing believers from other believers certainly sounds like a bad thing. After all, sowing discord among brothers is one of the things that the Lord hates (Proverbs 6:19). This is where the idea of doctrinal tiers put forward by Tim Keller and others is helpful. Most recently, this was articulated in Gavin Ortlund’s excellent book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage. Ortlund describes four doctrinal tiers:

• First-rank doctrines are essential to the gospel.
• Second-rank doctrines are urgent for the church (but not essential to the gospel).
• Third-rank doctrines are important to Christian theology (but not essential to the gospel or necessarily urgent for the church).
• Fourth-rank doctrines are indifferent (they are theologically unimportant). 1

First-rank doctrines are core tenets of the Christian faith. Abandoning them means abandoning the gospel, and as such, we must never be afraid to defend these doctrines and even divide over them because these doctrines mark the difference between true religion and false religion. These doctrines would include things like the virgin birth, the Trinity, and justification by faith alone. Second and third rank doctrines are usually where people who say that “doctrine divides” express concerns. 

Ortlund writes, 

      [A]lthough second-rank doctrines are not essential to the gospel, they exert a significant influence over our witness to and/or our understanding of the gospel… [S]econd-rank doctrines lead to practical differences in how we do church and/or ministry, such that attempting formal unity amid our different convictions will often lead to divisiveness, confusion, and violations of conscience. 

In other words, these are doctrines that a church must take a position on, because failure to do so makes unity within that church difficult or impossible. For example, if a church were to attempt to hold to both infant baptism and believer’s baptism, the church would inevitably divide into factions and would almost certainly require leaders to go against their conscience at some point or another. Second-rank doctrines are typically what divides one denomination from another because failure to take a position leads to a deeply divided church. In such instances, we see that it is not doctrine that divides, but failure to articulate doctrine. Rather than being a source of division, taking a position on secondary doctrines is a means of building unity within the church.

Third and fourth tier doctrines are areas where we can disagree with fellow church members without needing to make a denominational distinction. All of Scripture matters to God, and as such, it should also matter to us. At the same time, Scripture is not as clear on some things as it is on others. In such instances, we should not shy away from studying these issues and holding to a position, not insist that other members of our church must hold to the same view. 

Those who believe that doctrine divides should consider that often what divides a church is not that it has not taken a position on a doctrine, but that the church’s position is assumed, rather than stated. When insisting that a church must not divide over something, Christians must consider whether the doctrine they have deemed divisive is one that a church must take a position on in order to have a unified ministry. We must also be careful when we say that a doctrine ought not divide that we are not simultaneously saying that it is not worth studying or that it is wrong to openly take a position. If all of Scripture is God-breathed, then all of what it teaches is worth studying. 

At the same time, those of us who shy away from doctrinal minimalism would do well to heed the voices of those who seek unity and are concerned about lines drawn unnecessarily in the sand that unnecessarily divide believers from one another. We must be careful to wisely distinguish between doctrinal tiers, practicing what Ortlund describes as “theological triage”—that is, rightly determining which issues are urgent and ought to be prioritized. We must also be careful to exercise humility and remember that Christians should not pursue truth for the sake of being right, but out of love for the one who is the source of all truth. If our study of doctrine leads to divisive attitudes and uncharitable treatment of brothers and sisters in Christ, then it is likely that we have fallen into pride and are approaching our studies not out of love, but arrogance.

Recognizing doctrinal tiers also helps us to pursue ecumenical unity with believers outside of our church or denomination. We may disagree with our Presbyterian or Pentecostal brothers and sisters, but we can still maintain, joyfully, that they are in fact our brothers and sisters in Christ. As such, we can and should enjoy fellowship with them, pray with and for them, and minister alongside of them in parachurch contexts. Recognizing that, in a sense, doctrine does in fact divide allows us to pursue greater unity and avoid unnecessary divisiveness with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

1 From Finding the Right Hills to Die On, p 47.