Framing Doctrinal Disagreements

An earlier version of this article was originally published as two articles by Semper Ref in May and June of 2022. Those articles have been revised and updated.

When building a house, you must distinguish between those aspects of construction which are vital to the existence of the house, those which are critical for safety and longevity, those which are important for function, and those that shape the aesthetic. The foundation is essential, for without it, you cannot build anything at all. The framing, wiring, plumbing, and structure is critical to a healthy and safe home in which people can live, grow, and flourish over time. The design shapes how household members function as well as the effectiveness of the household labor and mission. Finally, the decor influences the culture of the home.

In this article, I want to argue that the household of God also contains varying levels of doctrinal importance, and that we must recognize these distinctions in order to experience proper unity in our denomination and with other Christians. My hope for the PCA is that we can find a way forward together if we can move toward agreement on these various levels of importance, then get more specific about what the current disagreements we’re having are, and then, finally, identify the level of importance of these disagreements. This article will focus on that first step. I will  aim to identify specifically some of our current disagreements and how to categorize them in a follow up article.

Christian Unity

Before exploring the various levels of doctrinal importance, let me explain what I mean by ‘proper unity.’

Proper unity with Christians across denominations involves recognizing one another as members of Christ’s church despite real and significant differences on doctrine and perhaps even on some moral judgments. This recognition goes beyond verbal affirmation of our unity to confessing the core teachings of the Christian faith and to accepting the validity of each other’s baptisms, eucharistic celebrations, and ordinations.

Proper unity within the PCA particularly, which is what I want to focus on here, involves holding to our Presbyterian and Reformed distinctives by embracing our system of doctrine and functioning with integrity according to our Book of Church Order (BCO) while allowing for differences in faith and practice on matters that do not strike at the fundamentals of our doctrinal system or the vitals of religion and do not transgress our BCO.

Denominational unity is destroyed when we tolerate things which must be rejected because they violate or contradict distinctives that are fundamental to our Presbyterian and Reformed system of doctrine. Denominational unity is also destroyed when we draw doctrinal lines more narrowly than our system of doctrine requires. It is my sense that both of these errors are playing out in our denomination and that those committing these errors are driving polarization and reactive conflict. In other words, divisive behavior in some (whether trying to narrow the denomination or transgressing our doctrine or practice) provokes divisive behavior in others.

Acknowledging varying levels of doctrinal importance and then carefully categorizing doctrines within this schema is critical to facilitating unity amidst certain types of diversity. It also gives us a helpful framework for discerning what other churches, organizations, and conferences we can partner with or participate in and to what degree.

But Are There Levels of Doctrinal Importance?

As elders in the PCA, we vow to receive and adopt the the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, and our Book of Church Order explicitly recognizes that some of the doctrines in our standards are fundamental to the system and some are not, which is why officers may by granted exceptions (BCO 21-4). Granting that some in our denomination object to good faith subscription, I think all would admit that the doctrines in chapter 2 on the Trinity are more important than those in chapter 24 on marriage and divorce. Further, most would admit that what’s taught in chapter 1 on Holy Scripture plays a more important role in our faith and practice than chapter 22 on lawful oaths and vows. 

More significantly, Scripture itself teaches us that not all doctrines are equally important.  Paul tells the Corinthians that the gospel is of first importance (1 Cor 15:3), and in his letters, he handles different doctrinal disagreements with varying levels of urgency. Some matters are the standard teaching for good order in all the churches (1 Cor 14:33), while other matters are approached with flexibility regarding the context (Acts 16:3). At times, he calls for Christians not to despise and pass judgment on one another about what to eat and drink (Rom 14 & 1 Cor 8-10) while at other times with other disagreements he suggests those in error are accursed (Gal 1:9). Scripture explicitly teaches that not every doctrinal question makes or breaks the faith. 

I want to suggest then, that our standards and Scripture explicitly and by good and necessary consequence teach us four different levels of doctrinal importance.

What are the Levels of Doctrinal Importance?

The Foundation (Orthodoxy): The first level are those doctrines which are essential to the Christian faith, which constitute the foundation of the Church, and which are shared by all Christians everywhere. These are the central tenets of orthodoxy that, if distorted or rejected, constitute heresy and give us a wholly different religion. These articles of faith were the subject of many of the ecumenical councils (i.e. Trinity, the person and natures of Christ). Some were the subject of Reformational debates (i.e. salvation by grace alone, justification by faith). And some were the reason for the modernist/fundamentalist debate (i.e. substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection). None of the doctrinal disagreements we’re currently having in the PCA deal with doctrines on this level. 

The Frame (Denominational Order): The second level contains doctrines which are critical to the health and safety of our churches, the fidelity of our denomination over time, and the godly formation of our members. These articles of faith include but are not limited to inerrancy, covenantal theology, election and predestination, the bondage of the will, and the scope of the atonement. Doctrines related to the church (sacraments, polity, ordination)fall into this category as well because they necessarily impact the way a church orders its life and therefore require separate denominations when there’s disagreement. For example, a church or group of churches cannot hold conflicting positions on 1) infant baptism, 2) male only ordination, and 3) the authority of the church residing in the elders. Churches must be ordered in some way and therefore must take a position on these matters.

The Design (Functional): The third level includes doctrines which orient and shape how a church functions in ministry and mission. There can be disagreement over these doctrines within a denomination and often a local church, and Christians must learn to allow for difference in these matters without causing division. That doesn’t mean debate is off limits, but we must treat these differences as important while not causes for separation. In the PCA, we recognize there will be differences on how we understand the creation days of Genesis, some of the applications we drawn from the 2nd and 4th commandments, the millennium and Jesus’ return, spiritual gifts, and more.

The Decor (Cultural): Finally, the fourth level are those doctrines which influence a church’s culture and typically relate to matters left to individuals and communities seeking to be faithful in their place and time. These are matters of wisdom and conscience guided by Scripture but not taught explicitly or by good and necessary consequence. It is here that Christians regularly express wide differences in their approach. For example, Christians are free to disagree about how to best educate their children, which candidates to vote for, and what public policies best approach a biblical vision of justice. Christians will arrive at different judgments about what foods to consume, art to enjoy, language to use, and clothes to wear. Churches will make different decisions about the circumstances of worship, establish different programs for Christian formation and fellowship, and recommend different resources for study. Certainly some of these judgments will be wiser than others, but we must make room for people to follow their consciences and for churches to exercise wisdom in their context without trying to bring uniformity on these matters.

Given that everyone in the PCA agrees on matters of orthodoxy (the foundation), we need to think carefully about the last three levels (frame, design, decor). I want to argue (and I hope to make this more clear later on when I get more specific about places where there’s disagreement in the PCA right now) that there are teachings in the Presbyterian and Reformed heritage that are not vital to the Reformed system. To give one example, the vast majority of Westminster Divines surely believed God created all things in the span of six days. This is undoubtedly the view of the Reformed tradition, but this understanding of the length of time it took to create is not vital to the Christian faith or our distinct system of doctrine, nor does it necessarily shape the ordering of our churches. For these reasons, we allow officers exceptions as long as their view on the matter does not distort important teachings like the historical Adam and Eve, original sin, or the goodness of God’s creation. I’m not suggesting the issue is unimportant but that it’s relatively unimportant when compared to orthodoxy and the distinctives which necessarily require us to ordered our distinct churches.

Reactivity

Others have written about making the distinctions I’m highlighting here, so this is not original to me. But I have not seen many in the PCA apply these distinctions to our internal disagreements, and we’re much worse off for it.

I’ve noticed a tendency among the missional crowd to function with only two categories: central and unimportant. The Moravian saying, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” is important when talking with a non-Christian or when we aim to display unity with all Christians. But that won’t cut it when it comes to pastoring a church in a particular denomination since there are many doctrines which drastically impact order, shape how our people are being formed, and determine long term health and fidelity in our churches. It is good, right, and necessary to have distinct beliefs as a denomination that shape how we function. Part of maintaining unity is abiding by the ways we’ve agreed to order our churches.

In the other pockets of our denomination, I see a lot of elders lumping every doctrinal question into the first or second level and rejecting out of hand anything that hasn’t been a part of our Reformed heritage as if the fundamentals of our Presbyterian and Reformed system are being violated. It’s good and right to have positions on tertiary issues, for these matters do impact our ministries and witness. But holding to these positions too tightly without allowing others in our churches and denomination to think and act differently needlessly prohibits us from walking together in unity. Part of maintaining unity involves refusing to cut people off over differences that don’t demand mutually exclusive thought or practice.

The reality is that both sides are reacting to one another, something I’ve tried to speak to in a previous article. One guy holds something too tightly, and so another acts as if only central doctrines are worth our concern. Another guy downplays our distinctives or appears to play fast and loose with our polity, so another guy acts like he’s J. Gresham Machen fighting those denying the faith. Both of these reactions reveal an anxious posture uncomfortable with the presence of some kind of difference. Both of these reactions are needlessly tearing us apart.

The First Step Forward

I propose that the first step in resolving our differences is acknowledging these levels of doctrinal importance so that we can name our differences, locate them, and then attune our level of concern accordingly.

My key arguments thus far are as follows:

1. Not every doctrinal question carries the same weight.

2. There are four levels of doctrinal importance:

• Level 1: Foundational - Orthodoxy, the essence of the faith

• Level 2: Denominational - Distinctives critical to health, fidelity, and formation

• Level 3: Functional - Issues orienting and shaping ministry and mission

• Level 4: Cultural - Matters of wisdom and conscience flavoring connection to people and place 

3. The Reformed heritage contains doctrines which can be categorized in all four of these levels.

4. Failing to recognize these levels is leading to errors in two directions and driving reactive responses from various groups within the PCA.

If we can agree with these four arguments, then I hope we can begin to productively discuss the specific doctrinal disagreements before us. That’s what I hope to do in what follows as I to try to specifically name disagreements I think we’re having in the PCA and to categorize them accordingly.

No Debate on Orthodoxy

Sadly, I have had arguments with fellow elders on whether or not we are in agreement! I want to say plainly that we in the PCA clearly DO have disagreements, but I believe these disagreements span the latter three categories and avoid the first.

Regarding matters of orthodoxy that constitute the foundation of the Church, none of these doctrines are being debated within the PCA, which is why labelling or comparing  any of our officers to liberals is inaccurate and prejudicial in that it suggests our disagreements are a matter of contending for the faith itself. Because many elders continually harken back to the modernist controversy 100 years ago and try to draw parallels to arguments used then, the level of intensity and concern over our disagreements has risen to unhealthy levels. Running around our house waving red flags and yelling, “Fire! Fire! Emergency!” as if the house is burning down when in reality someone just burned dinner in the kitchen will prevent us from being the family we’re called to be.

Regarding level 2, there also seems to be very little disagreement, though, it seems reasonable that there is suspicion that not all of our officers are fully convinced on these matters. Some questions about ordination, worship, sin, and sanctification have been raised, and I’ll say more on that below.

Almost all of our differences seem to exist at levels 3 and 4, and, frankly, this is normal, unavoidable, and even good. Rather than having uniform positions on every question, healthy denominations should be able to live together in peace knowing they don’t see eye to eye on every question. However, while we can actually minister together without full agreement, some PCA elders want us to adopt uniform positions on level 3 issues like the creation days, images of Jesus in our minds or for pedagogical and artistic use, the use of the Christian calendar, and/or how the regulative principle of worship must play out. Further, level 4 debates about how and when to confront the dominant sins of the world, about how to receive common grace insights (psychology, sociology, legal studies, natural science, etc.), about the language we use to tell our stories, about what organizations we may partner with, about the best candidates or policies to support to bring about justice in society, etc., all of these are matters of wisdom. They certainly flow out of our doctrine, but our views on these matters are very much shaped by our individual experience, knowledge, cultural setting, and sense of priority and urgency.

On the Revoice Controversy (2018-2024)

The main controversy for the past several years has been about the Revoice conference hosted by Memorial Pres. It was finally resolved at the 2024 PCA General Assembly in the ratifcation of another Overture about officer qualifications.

Four main questions were raised during the controversy:

1. The Doctrine of Sin: Concupiscence

2. The Doctrine of Sanctification: Identity and Transformation

3. Self-description language

4. Church/Denominational Partnership across Differences with People and Organizations

In my view, the actions the PCA took over the past 6 years (affirming the Nashville Statement, the AIC Study Report on Human Sexuality, SJC decisions, and several overtures) demonstrate that we have high agreement on the doctrines of sin and sanctification, which are level 2 matters. However, it is not clear we have agreement on self-description language and associations, and so we left those questions unresolved. But this demonstrates, in my opinion, that these are level 3 and 4 matters that impact our ministry and mission but not our order and fellowship as a denomination.

While many are celebrating that the PCA successfully rebuffed a dangerous invasion of false doctrine, I don’t believe we were ever facing the threat of compromising 1st or 2nd tier doctrines. Rather, some people became very concerned because they failed to recognize different approaches to how people tell their stories and to partnerships and associations.

On Worship and Polity

Currently, there seems to be disagreement in the PCA on issues related to worship and male-only ordination to the office of deacon, and on these matters, I think we’re seeing a number of doctrinal levels at play.

It’s no secret that some officers desire that we change our BCO to allow for the ordination (or commissioning) of female deacons. This is a level 2 disagreement, and like all disagreements at this level, pursuing unity on this disagreement involves 1) a willingness to follow our BCO as it is written right now without trying to find loopholes that violate the known intention of what’s been written, 2) patiently seeking to bringing about a BCO change through persuasion and overtures seeking amendments, and 3) a refusal to constantly press the issue once there has been deliberation and rejection of the proposed change. Just as it is inappropriate and divisive to constantly debate and seek year-in and year-out to change the PCA position on good faith subscription, so also the question of female deacons should not be an ever-present debate. Disagreements here should be revisited infrequently, perhaps every generation or less.

Relatedly, many have suggested or are suspicious that some of our elders want to see women ordained as pastors. This is, perhaps, because there is some evidence in some churches. The Metro NY case of a church that allowed a woman to preach one Sunday has caused quite a stir. While the session and pastor have repented and explained that they did not understand this was a violation of the BCO, there remains a suspicion that this was done in ignorance. In other churches, women are participating in leading elements of the liturgy in ways that do not fit the historic practice of many PCA churches and may violate our principles of worship. While I do not think PCA elders want to ordain women to the office of elder (For why would they be in the PCA when they could join the EPC or ECO?), I do think it’s clear there are different views about what ritual functions belong to the office of elder. In my view, some of these questions fall into level 2 while others fall into level 3. For example, that preaching is a function of an teaching elder seems to be a level 2 doctrine, but that the reading of Scripture publicly always belongs to elders and not to congregants generally seems to be a level 3 (if not level 4) issue. Churches within the PCA can make different decisions about women reading Scripture publicly, and that doesn’t prevent us from being connected, nor should it scandalize a worshiper’s conscience as long as a woman is not pressured into reading publicly when she believes that should be done by a male elder. The question of whether or not a woman may help distribute the communion elements falls into level 3 as well. While everyone in the PCA must abide by the regulative principle of worship, only introducing elements of worship taught in Scripture explicitly or by good and necessary consequence, churches need to be given room to make different choices about how to involve unordained members in leading different aspects of a church service. Again, this doesn’t mean debate is off limits or that there aren’t some who have better reasons for the decisions they make than others, it simply means that we register that our differences belong in a certain place.

Other issues surrounding worship that seem to come up regularly include intinction and the Christian calendar. Again, both of these belong to level 3. As long as churches do not require following the Christian calendar with all its prayers, fasts, feasts, and attending Scripture readings as matters of Christian obedience, churches and congregants have the right to organize their lives accordingly. I recognize that the Reformed Tradition has generally avoided this, but just because the Roman and the Anglican churches have at times abused their authority and sought to impose these things does not mean we may not make use of them freely.

Two other worship matters are debated regularly: images and Sabbath. Everyone in the PCA agrees on the level 2 matter that visual representations of any member of the Trinity should not be utilized in corporate worship. We reject the use of icons at church and private veneration. However, there is a level 3 debate as to whether or not pictures of Jesus may be present as art in a church building or in teaching material for a Sunday school or home group. It is a matter of conscience (level 4) as to whether or not church members use The Jesus Storybook Bible, for instance, at home to teach their children. Relatedly, there’s debate about whether or not Christians may eat out at a restaurant on the Lord’s Day (level 4) and whether a church should have corporate worship morning and evening (level 3). I know personally one of the fathers of the PCA that attends two different PCA churches in his town, one in the morning and one in the evening, because he believes Christians should worship morning and evening on the Lord’s Day. The church he attends in the morning does not have an evening service, yet he gladly participates in the church without making an issue of it. Instead, he attends another church in the presbytery that meets in the evenings and not in the mornings. He will gladly make his case for morning and evening worship, but he lives at peace and in unity with both churches. His approach to this issue seems to be a charitable and wise one our denomination could learn from in this moment.

Walking Forward Together

I hope I have begun to name some of our real disagreements and categorize them such that we can feel the proper urgency or patience, respectively. Some in the PCA need to recognize they cannot disrupt the order we’ve agreed to, whatever their personal conviction might be, without violating their vows and disturbing the peace and purity of our denomination. We don’t get to follow our private interpretations. On the other hand, others in the PCA need to cease and desist the war horns and stop acting as though they are contending for the faith once for all delivered. None of us are Martin Luther or J. Gresham Machen, and we don’t get to act like our opponents have departed from the faith.

To walk forward together, we must be able to name our differences and debate them, but this debate must also include careful attention to the level of importance of the debate we’re having. I don’t mean to suggest we’ll always agree on that. You may take issue with how I’ve categorized the issues above, but if we start taking the time to do this, with charity, trust, and patience, then perhaps we can experience greater peace in the PCA.