Supporting Theological Diversity

When discussing matters of theology and faith, a certain amount of space needs to be created to allow for diversity and dialogue. This is because not all matters of faith are equally important. Not every belief should be held with the same degree of conviction. Some beliefs are more important than others. A person's conviction about baptism, for example, is simply not as important as a person's belief about Jesus' divinity. The latter is obviously more important than the former. Recognizing this fact changes the way we discuss these two areas of belief. So how do we go about creating the right amount of space for diversity and discussion?

Here is where the Dogma-Doctrine-Opinion Distinction becomes incredibly helpful. The basic premise is that matters of theology and faith, belief and doctrine, can ultimately be placed in one of three categories. Dogmas refer to those beliefs that are central to Christian orthodoxy (i.e. right belief). They are key tenants of the Christian faith that are dogmatic and (for the most part) salvific in nature. A good example of dogmatic belief is Jesus' divinity or the resurrection--belief in both are required for salvation. Doctrines are theological commitments that do not carry salvific value, but form the basis for denominational distinction. This category recognizes that orthodox believers may disagree on theological matters without necessarily breaking fellowship. A good example here would be one's belief on baptism or the Lord supper. While people certainly can have strong convictions regarding these matters, no one would say or should say that their particular view is required for salvation. Opinions are beliefs that are nothing more than the label signifies--that is, religious or theological opinions. A good example here would be worship style. One's preferred worship style is neither dogmatically or doctrinally significant (although some might like to think so).

Given these categories, it is imperative that one not falsely elevate either doctrines or opinions to the level of dogmatic status. I am under the firm persuasion that the degree of conviction any particular belief ought to receive should directly correspond to its centrality to Christian orthodoxy and the clarity it is given in the Scriptures. Now, obviously some may disagree about where the line should be drawn about specific beliefs--especially in the last two categories. Many people will be inclined to think that their theological opinions are doctrines because of how strongly they believe in them. But such scenarios do not work against the model or framework that has been present. If anything, it just points out the reason why we need something like this in place.

The bottom line is that we need to allow room for theological diversity so that we can have healthy discussion and dialogue. We need to learn how to major on the majors and minor on the minors--as the old saying goes, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity (or love)."