Doctrine Divides

From The Christian Reader:

Doctrine Divides


by Eric Rauch



One of the catch phrases of modern evangelicalism is: “doctrine divides.” While most people will recognize the truth of this, the phrase is not meant to be a simple declaration of fact. When contemporary Christianity uses this phrase, what it is really saying is that doctrine should not be a focus of the church because it divides. The assumption is that division is bad and unity is good, so the only way to keep the unity is to not discuss the things that divide us. Only happy thoughts and warm feelings are allowed to enter the modern church atmosphere of superficiality, anything else may upset the delicate balance of anti-doctrine that we have tried so hard to create.



There can be no denying the painful reality that doctrine does indeed divide. There is a popular saying that warns against bringing up either politics or religion in polite conversation, and there is certainly much wisdom and truth in this. People tend to become less than polite when you steer the discussion away from their adorable new beagle to the most current foreign policy fiasco or whether Jesus is really the Messiah. The driving force here is that you don’t want to discuss things that really matter because most people have strong views about these topics. Well, yeah, but isn’t that the point? If we can’t discuss the things that really matter without losing our heads, then maybe we should address this problem first and not avoid it by pretending to be interested in a new puppy. We are doing a disservice to everyone when we give in to the temptation to keep the peace by only focusing on the areas where we agree.



This temptation is not unique to our time period, much as we might like to think that this is a “new problem.” The pragmatic appeal of not discussing doctrine has a long history. Thankfully, there have always been “voices in the wilderness,” ones willing to disregard the false sense of unity offered by the code of polite silence. Three such men are discussed in John Piper’s book, Contending for Our All.



One of the primary reasons to study church history is the lesson that it brings for the church in our own day. In fact, history in general should be studied to not only get an idea of what has happened before, but to get a sense of cause and effect. History is not just a series of events and individuals that we occasionally focus on in the rear-view mirror. The events and individuals are important because they contribute to the ebb and flow, the regress and progress, of mankind. We are products of those who came before us, just as they were products of the ones that preceded them. The pages of history are filled with good guys and bad guys, and one historian’s hero is another’s villain. Although we must not judge history by our own modern ideals, we must possess some sort of standard which enables us to draw conclusions. Doctrine is that standard.





Get" Contending for Our All" from the Reformation Bookstore

Descriptively subtitled—Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen—Piper’s book helpfully shows how we can learn from the controversies of the past. As he writes in the introduction, we can learn to “see reality through the eyes of a different time. That is a great advantage. It serves to liberate us from the dangers of chronological snobbery that assumes ours is the wisest of times” (p. 35). These three men—Athanasius, Owen, and Machen—while separated by hundreds of years, each fought a similar enemy. All three had antagonists both without, in the form of critics, and within, in the form of personal demons. Piper makes these men far more than interesting historical personages, he makes them real men, flesh and blood men, that wrestled with sin just as we do. Piper’s examination of these men is not ancestor worship masquerading as biography, it is honest and genuine, detailing both the ups and the downs.



While most readers are probably at least marginally familiar with John Owen, the other two names are probably less recognizable. Athanasius was born in the 3rd century (298 AD) in Egypt and Machen was born in the 19th century (1881) in Baltimore. Owen, falling in between these two men historically, was born in 1616 in England. These three men lived in three radically different parts of the world, in three radically different time periods, but their love and zeal for the truth and the purity of the Gospel unites them across geography and time. They understood the fact that doctrine divides, but they further understood that division is a natural consequence of truth. Jesus Himself said He came not to bring peace, but division (Matthew 10:34). Truth is absolute by its very definition and absolute truth allows no competitors to voice an equal claim. The first commandment sets the tone for the other nine: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). God’s command to exclusivity in authority teaches us that His truth is exclusive as well. Athansius, Owen, and Machen instinctively understood this principle.



The concluding paragraphs to Piper’s introductory sketch to the lives of these three men brings the issue into focus:



Faithful Christians do not love controversy; they love peace. They love their brothers and sisters who disagree with them. They long for a common mind for the cause of Christ. But they are bound by their conscience and by the Word of God, for this very reason, to try to persuade the church concerning the fullness of the truth and beauty of God’s word.



We live in a day of politicized discourse that puts no premium on clear assertions. Many use language to conceal where they stand rather than to make clear where they stand. One reason this happens is that clear and open statements usually result in more criticism than ambiguous statements do. Vagueness will win more votes in a hostile atmosphere than forthrightness will. (p. 169)





Piper understands the temptation to water down truth. But he also understands that this temptation will have a doubly negative effect. Making clear and absolute statements about where we stand will cause division in the short run, but will ultimately bring real unity. Avoiding doctrine because it divides may appear to unite in the short run, but will eventually lead to division, so that you end up with neither unity nor truth; polite cocktail party conversation can only last so long. Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen provide three shining examples of this. These men loved Jesus more than they loved false unity and their example of standing for truth is instructive, and needed, in our own day.