Doctrines That Divide

I heard a pastor, bearing a reputation of being a bit controversial and divisive, discuss with his congregation the process of finding a common ground while not becoming soft on important doctrinal truths. He referred to the attitude as open-handed/close-handed, where we ought to grasp tightly and unshakably over important biblically-saturated doctrines while staying open and relenting on every other practice or belief. As far as how much compromise of doctrine should occur in the name of cooperation or the protection from division, I would purport: none at all. Each church should have an understanding of what doctrines are most vital and maintain those views with conviction, all the while understanding that some of their perspectives are unique to their congregation and may not be necessarily accepted by other churches. Foundational doctrine principles should never be compromised, even if it means division. But not everything is a foundational doctrine principle. Falling into either camp is wrong.

As for the use of politics in the church, I disagree with any use of political power or influence unless there is a disunity between doctrinal beliefs and the actual Word of God, as adhered to by the saints and the Church at large. However, as quickly as I say that, I feel I need to check myself by saying that no agenda should have to be pushed through by the use of political prowess within the church. If there is a disharmony over an important aspect of church administration, instruction, missions work, or doctrine, there should be no need for civil war. Again, checking myself, we also cannot allow heresy to build up in the Church. It needs to be cut back just like weeds in a garden. Every single "agenda" or idea, belief, or practice, has to stand up to the tightest scrutiny of biblical instruction and mandate. It's a tricky, fuzzy exercise at times, but completely necessary.