Many of us like to debate theology in a friendly fashion
over meals together. But how do we
know which hills are really worth dying on? How do we know which issues should move beyond friendly
debate to true contending for the faith?
Historically,
there have been a few things that believers have considered when trying to
address this question. The first: is
the issue directly related to the gospel?
The Protestant Reformation represents one of the most serious of
theological hills in that it was largely based upon the struggle for the
doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. The Catholic church had adulterated the
gospel to the point that believers of conscience could no longer stand idly
by. They fought for the gospel and
that fight changed the course of history.
A few years
back, there was a sustained assault on the doctrine of substitutionary
atonement in some of the more liberal pockets of the church. Conservative evangelicals rightly
recognized that this doctrine was foundational to the gospel itself, and they
contended for their all against the liberals. I have ten books on my shelves spanning a mere five-year
period, all written specifically to address the crisis. The truth won out and those questioning
the atonement are correctly considered outside the camp of orthodoxy today. We should follow in the footsteps of
those who have come before us by contending for any essential component of the
gospel.
A second
question to consider when determining whether a hill is worth dying on is, does
this issue directly impact our view of Scripture? From the turn of the 20th century to the late
1970’s, the Southern Baptist Convention saw a steady decline in inerrantism in
the leadership of the denomination.
Conservatives, unwilling to turn a blind eye on this most important of
doctrines, waged a steady campaign from the late 70’s to the early 90’s to
re-establish inerrantism as an essential position of the denomination. We, too, should be willing to die on
any hill related to the nature of Scripture.
A third
question: does this pertain to the nature of the Godhead? Most of the theological controversies
of the early church surrounded the orthodox understanding of the members of the
Trinity. This is why all of the
early creeds are so heavy on the deity of Christ – they fought long and hard to
win that theological battle. We
should be willing to stand anytime there is a movement in the church to
downgrade a member of the Trinity from our biblical and historically orthodox
understanding of them.
We could say
that there are a good many hills to die on out there. Most of them have already been fought before, but they will
undoubtedly need to be fought again.
As we have seen with the crises about the atonement and biblical
inerrancy, we can never consider these issues completely resolved, never to be
fought again. Others will come in
the future to challenge these essential doctrines and we must always be ready
to contend for them as did earlier generations.
At the same
time, we need to extend great grace to one another on issues not closely
related to these more central issues.
For example, the church has not engaged in sustained, strenuous debate
over doctrines such as eschatology or the charismata. No one has been anathematized for
holding to post-millennialism. It
is not that these areas have not been debated at all over the course of church
history. It is simply that they
have not received great attention as doctrines essential to the faith. For that reason, while we are free to
debate these things, we should keep them in their proper place, reserving our
greatest energy and attention for what the church has long considered
first-tier doctrines.
This subject
prompts me to consider how strong our stance should be on a couple of issues
receiving much attention and energy today: homosexuality and homosexual
marriage. Should we consider these
things hills to die on? Should we
be willing to partner with churches that perform same-sex marriages? Should we be willing to partner with
churches that ordain homosexual pastors?
That’s what we’ll consider next time.
Until then
consider: are you currently making a stand on a hill that is not
essential? Conversely, are you
falling down on a hill that is essential?
Comments