Engaging in Theological Debate and Remaining Christian

Theological debates and differences have always been part of Christianity throughout its history. In a sense, disputes can be necessary. Done well such discussions can provide clarity on issues that have not been clearly articulated by the church. One can think Athanasius and Arius on the essence of the Son in the third century or Luther and Erasmus. Furthermore, people stating what they believe invariably leads them to say what they do not believe and as result lines are drawn.

It is also worth noting that debates are often not done well. People respond to disagreements differently depending on their levels of maturity. Theological debates often cause immediate strong emotional reactions. Some become aggressive and hostile, others defensive and others sceptical. The rise of social media has changed the dynamics of debating in our day. A lot of the discussion is characterised by poor reasoning, half-truths, slander and downright arrogance such that it is not a debate, but people talking past each other or merely interested in listening to themselves. So how should we engage in theological debate in what is often a toxic environment? Al Martin gave some wise counsel in a talk on dispensationalism in March 2011. Here are the four points of wisdom, followed by my brief explanations.

1. “We are under a solemn obligation to receive as brethren all who hold to essential saving truth.” 1 John 3:14 calls to love those how have believed in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. They are brethren. Martin argues that we should differentiate between a theological novelty, theological errors and heresies.

2. “We are under a solemn obligation not to bear false witness, even amid theological debate.” Integrity requires that we fairly represent the views of others by quoting primary sources and in context. Mispresenting other people’s beliefs reflect our sinful heart. Do not claim someone said something based on what another person posted on social media. If you are going to criticise what another person teaches, make sure you have actually read or personally heard what they teach.

3. “Separate personalities from principals. It is possible to love and hold a man in high esteem while disagreeing with his principals”. It is possible to disagree with a person lovingly and graciously way. We should not buy in the notion that disagreeing with a person means that i.) You hate them or ii.) You have to attack and slander them.

4. “There are various expressions of most theological positions. In addressing a position, it is important to remember there are various strands to a position.” There are positions within a position, often ranging from extreme to moderate. It is therefore essential to present people’s view accurately and not lump them to a doctrinal position they do not hold.

There is a difference between having a theological debate and being quarrelsome. And just because we disagree over an issue does not mean we should be malicious and defamatory. And common decency depends that before you wade into the open waters of the theological debate, you must be knowledgeable about the subject. Otherwise, you become a noisy gong. As they say, empty drums make the loudest noises. Dear Christian “have nothing to with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servants must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. (2 Tim 2:23-24)